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?
ipreferred
The more accurate description of the Mumbai terrorists which the BBC avoids, for its own political agenda, is:
“Islamic jihad mass muderers”
Ricky, “Living La Vida Loca” still going down a storm in India I see.
“Mumbai” is not confined to the BBC though; I haven’t seen any broadcaster or media outlet use Bombay lately (unless quoting someone who actually lives there!).
Sarah jane:
“What is irritating about this board, and particularly DV’s blogs, is/are the blanket statements that the BBC never does this or never does that. When the bloody thing it NEVER does is in the article being linked to!!”
Try reading the posts before gobbing off with your BBC apologies Sarah jane.
As has already been pointed out to you, when DV posted his comments the word ‘terrorist’ was not in the report.
The BBC have revised it, and condescending idiots like you lap up revionist history without question.
Try harder Sarah Jane.
Sarah Jane
Sorry if you find this website “irritating “, but it is meant to be !
Sarah Jane,
No argument from me. At least this time nobody is saying that the BBC only uses the “T” word for US or UK military actions.
But this particular article is very problematic. I just had a look at Newssniffer, and the very first version of this piece uses the “T” word in the first sentence, although as attributed speech.
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/177746/diff/1/2
The “T” word remains, and even multiplies, in subsequent versions. But starting with Version 8, the sub-editor starts tweaking that opening line, slowly putting some distance between the “T” word and the BBC. By Version 19, it’s gone altogether. That’s the version I saw when I first clicked through DV’s link. It appears a couple of versions later, but has been moved further down, though still as a “police said” deal.
I don’t really have any problem with leaving it as an attribution (at least they’re allowing it through these days), but I’d be interested to learn the editorial musings behind the shift in all these versions (aside from new or corrected info coming in, etc.).
As for the Muslim angle, if this were just another in a series of mass murders associated with the ongoing little war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and the sectarian struggle between Hindus and Mohammedans in general, I wouldn’t mind the editorial decision to hide the “M” word. But once we start hearing about UK and US tourists being deliberately targeted, that goes out the window. I see this as pretty clear evidence that an editorial decision was taken to hide the Muslim angle as much as possible.
If they were North Koreans, Iranians, Cubans, or some other nationality supposedly at odds with the US or UK, then it wouldn’t be such a big deal. Pakistan is not currently in conflict with either, so there must be some other association involved, which ought to be reported. In the interest of accuracy, of course.
What’s curious is that this article started out with the “M” word in plain sight, saying that Muslim “militants” have been blamed. The BBC sub-editor tried to maintain for a couple versions that Hindu extremists – just in case anyone was worried that this incident would make Mohammedans look bad, no doubt – but it disappears soon after.
By the time we’re at Version 16, the finger pointing at Muslims is being slowly withdrawn: “a claim of responsibility by a little-know group, Deccan Mujhaideen, may harden suspicions that Islamic radicals are involved.” We’re getting into contortionist territory here. In subsequent versions, the “Muslims may have been suspected” angle gets pushed further and further down, and while the police are once again blaming it on “Muslim militants”, we’re back to Hindu “extremists” being arrested. This doesn’t jive with any other report I’ve seen anywhere, nor does it make any sense in the context of the rest of the article. It’s almost like it’s something the Beeboids made up just to soften the blow against Muslims. I can almost hear the News Online Beeboid saying “If we mention Muslims, we must mention Hindus as well. Find something.”
There’s too much dancing around both the “M” word and the “T” word here.
Aside from all that, speaking for myself, your contributions here are always appreciated. And I am unanimous in that.
DV, maybe you should put time stamps on your topics so as not to confuse BBC airheads like Sarah Jane.
Ricky Martin 3:51
Would you really expect the BBC to know the origin of the name
” Mumbai” ? Too much like hard work for them to find out.
Much easier for them to stick with their simplistic mindset.
“Bombay” = British Colonialism = Bad
“Mumbai” = “Ethnic local name ” = Good.
It is pathetic, really.
Bombay is derived from the Portuguese ‘bom bahia’ meaning ‘good bay’. The British made it Bombay. Mumbai, named after a goddess in the original dialect, was the original name for the area, and it was renamed this officially in 1996 by the Indian government.
Al Beeb are terrorists
they scare the fuck out of vunerable ppl and terrorise them in their own home with “its all in the data base”
and if i punched fcuk out of a beeboid terrorist telly tax collector, i’d be the bad guy, wheres the justice in that
Beeboid scumbags
ipreferred | 27.11.08 – 3:54 pm |
Unrestrained by, or setting at defiance, the principles of decorum and morality; presumptuously wicked, impudent, shameless.
Doesn’t sound very nice does it?
There are two problems with your defense:
First of all, the BBC is clearly using it in the “unrestrained by, or setting at defiance” sense, which is why people here object to it in this circumstance.
Second, it’s an emotional term, and both Nick Reynolds and the Beeboid who used to visit here under the name of John Reith have told us time and time again that the BBC doesn’t like to use the “T” word because it’s an emotional term. They say that the BBC prefers a more accurate term, and that the “T” word doesn’t add to that.
Of course, claiming that the BBC tries to refrain from emotionalism is an absolute joke, but that’s what they said anyway.
The point is that the BBC is using “audacious” in a not very negative way. I won’t say that they’re commending the attacks, but common use of the word is generally in a more positive sense, and I can’t see this example as an exception. Worse, the BBC uses one emotional term to describe the attacks, yet restricts the use of another emotional term to attributed speech.
If they had said something like, “what XX has called an audacious attack”, then you’d have an argument. That’s not at all what’s going on here.
The Religion of Peace is changing lives in Mumbai, India this week,
where 125 innocents have been blasted or shot to death, 300 injured
and about 40 tourists taken hostage – all in the name of Islam!
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
MUMBAI Islamic jihad mass murders:
‘Daily Mail’ update –
“Mumbai Massacre: British tycoon killed moments after TV interview as death toll hits 125”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1089711/Mumbai-Massacre-British-tycoon-killed-moments-TV-interview-death-toll-hits-125.html
audacious |ôˈdā sh əs|
adjective
1 showing a willingness to take surprisingly bold risks : a series of audacious takeovers. See note at bold .
2 showing an impudent lack of respect : an audacious remark
——
even if the negative meaning is taken, it’s use to describe terrorist activities is really out of place as if terrorism is something people find commonplace.
Perhaps the morning shift at the BBC is less loony left / PC than the night shift…
This makes total sense. The people who arrive in the afternoon are one step removed from the student union/pub/etc.
I imagine the average age of the BBC staffer drops down during the day too.
“Some fucking towel head was on with Vicki Pollard on 5 lite this morning coming out with the usual shite about “British foreign policy”.
Classic terrorism,the use of deadly violence against innocent civilian for political ends.We know who to blame.
ipreferred: try to imagine over a hundred completely innocent civilians. People like us. Like our families and friends.
Imagine shrapnel ripping into their bodies, cutting their faces to ribbons, blasting limbs away, and generally smashing the life out of them.
Imagine scores of people like our families and loved ones having bullets rip into their heads, necks, stomachs. Imagine how much blood. Imagine the terror, and the grief to follow.
And then tell me if you think your dictionary definition holds any water at all as a defence for using the word “audacious” to describe what has been done.
Today is thanksgiving day in America
YouTube Video: Ronald Reagan talks to Amercia on Thanksgiving Day 1985
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KO2HaGOui4U
.
and if i punched fcuk out of a beeboid terrorist telly tax collector, i’d be the bad guy…
MrLouKnee | 27.11.08 – 4:18 pm |
No, you’d be audacious. 🙂
Mumbai: BBC euphemisms continue – in a report of approximately 10 minutes, BBC Radio 4’s ‘P.M.’ programme had the BBC’s Mumbai reporter use the word ‘miltants’ to describe the perpetrators, and nothing else – no ‘muhijadeen’, no ‘Islamic jihad’, no ‘terrorist’ even, that last word was used by an Indian security official; ‘The Times of India’ routinely uses the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the perpetrators, as does India’s NDTV.
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/default.aspx
The BBC follows the Indians in calling ‘Bombay’ as ‘Mumbai’, but it doesn’t find it so easy to follow them in calling terrorists ‘terrorists’.
slacker | 27.11.08 – 4:53 pm |
even if the negative meaning is taken, it’s use to describe terrorist activities is really out of place as if terrorism is something people find commonplace.
Not that this is what you meant, but your comment actually made me think that they were trying to imply that these acts are not commonplace. I’d accept that, if it was the actual explanation, even though I still say that in the end it’s a poor choice of words, especially considering the emotionalism.
At least they didn’t use “daring” this time.
DV, maybe you should put time stamps on your topics so as not to confuse BBC airheads like Sarah Jane.
Kill the Beeb | 27.11.08 – 4:08 pm | #
————————————–
What a pleasant and tolerant person, I disagree ideologically with Sarah Jane, however attacking her for not sharing your own views is not the way to win a debate.
evil TERRORISTS,
Quite so
However we have evil surrounding us where ever we live.
Evil can not EVER be trusted, and very often comes from the last place one might expect.
I define The BBC itself as being EVIL, representing EVIL, being run ultimately by very evil people. Armed with an extremely well financed devoutly EVIL plan, they desperately wish to inflict on the whole of mankind, for the most EVIL of reasons imaginable.
Many EVIL terrorists are brainwashed into doing evil, by being shown examples of BBC lies and disinformation.
The question is.
WHO is ULTIMATELY responsible for the direct or otherwise brainwashing of what most likely would have been normal well adjusted ordinary Muslim or British citizens?
One can ONLY conclude it is being done by either the Islamic establishment or the Western establishment. Or it is being done in a conspiracy between the two.
To me it is clear that the evidence points very strongly to the fact that it is being done, one way or another by a conspiracy between the two, at the highest possible level.
I ask you to please at least consider my above statement, as at least a possibility.
For no other reason that it would help me to believe, I am not the only person on this site with a mind of their own. That does not also base every living thought in their head ONLY on what their main steam media and especially their evidently EVIL BBC propagates to them.
The name “Bombay” means “Good Harbour” in Portuguese. It was a Portugese settlement until it came into British possession with the marriage of Catherine of Braganza to King Charles II in 1662. It continued as part of British India until 1947. I was born there in the last year of the Raj, and grew up there. It was a magnificent city.
Everyone still calls it Bombay, apart from politicians and their politically-correct toadies in the West, such as the BBC. Both The Times and The Daily Telegraph still refer to it as Bombay.
If we are going to call things by their proper names, then perhaps it is time to start referring to the
BBC as the “Bestial Broadcasting Corporation.”
The Muslim Brotherhood knows who’s really behind it:
http://ikhwanweb.com/Article.asp?ID=18774&SectionID=100
“It is clear that Mossad is involved in the whole affair. An entire city has been attacked by Mossad and probably units of mercenaries. It is not possible for one single organization to plan and execute such a sophisticated operation.”
“Today is a day of shame for all Indians and all Hindus. Muslims and secular Hindus have been proven right. RSS type forces and Israel are all involved in not only destabilizing but finishing India. India should immediately snap all relations with Israel.”
“A photograph published in Urdu Times, Mumbai, clearly shows that Mossad and ex-Mossad men came to India and met Sadhus and other pro-Hindutva elements recently. A conspiracy was clearly hatched. “
Sarah jane. Do you take it up the pooper? If so I want to diddle with your rusty bullet hole.
No bob, I do not ‘take it up the pooper’ thank you very much. But I do however like to ‘toss the salad’ particularly when I am out dogging in the woods on a Friday evening.
Sarah Jane, no? But you work for the bbc and are a man?
kersal flyer | 27.11.08 – 6:54 pm
Unbelievable! Amaresh Misra does not provide a shred of credible evidence to back up this ludicrous claim.
That is the modus operandi of these people – point the blame at Israel at every opportunity.
SJ/ Bobnob
For the life of me I can not understand why men want for the tradesmen’s entrance when the front door is the polite way in.
Sarah Jane | 27.11.08 – 3:39 pm
The post to which you are alluring, as Frank Spencer would say, was written long ago but I think I vaguely remember trying to illustrate the futility of cherry picking. I seem to remember writing:
“All I’m doing here is demonstrating what can be done when you try. We can all cherry pick, but as for the gist, well, there’s none so blind….” so your fisking seemed a bit pointless.
(Imaginary growly face.)
So I’m still not sure what you were getting at.
By the way, as if I could get David Vance to do anything. Write in shades of grey! The very idea.
As if.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7752625.stm
al beeb manage to find an “on message” witness to fit their agenda
“Pappu Mishra was tending to his customers at his glass-walled cafe at the gothic Victorian Chattrapati Shivaji Terminus railway station in Mumbai when he spotted two sprightly young men dressed in black….Their audaciousness was breath-taking,” he says.”
THAT word again!
“One man loaded the magazine into the gun, the other kept shooting. They appeared calm and composed. They were not in the slightest hurry. They didn’t seem to be afraid at all.”
They are really KEWL !
“Then, the “foreign looking, fair skinned” men, as Mr Mishra remembers them, simply carried on killing. ”
i.e MOSSAD
” Bodies with gaping bullet wounds lay all over, and the waiting hall became a sea of blood ….It was the longest 10-15 minutes of my life,” Mr Mishra said. “They fired at least three rounds without any resistance. I had no clue why they were doing this.”
GEDDIT – no one knows the motive. No it’s not violent islamic millenarian nihilism
Brown and D.Miliband (F.O.) are trying to give the appearance that they are ‘doing something’ in relation to Mumbai Islamic Jihad, but they behave with dhimmitude (as does the BBC) towards Islam everywhere, not least in Britain.
Brown and Miliband have allowed an Islamic jihad-supporting base to have grown up in the UK through their support for mass immigration (from Turkey next) to the UK, aided by an appeasing multiculturalism.
“UK: Almost 10% of Muslims support
Suicide Attacks”
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003823.html
And the BBC report such Islamic jihad supporting attitudes sympathetically, e.g.
“Bin Laden is seen as a hero”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4744865.stm
And meanwhile, such is the deep dhimmitude fostered by Labour (and the BBC), that this happens:
“British prison officer fired for bin Laden snipe”
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000323.php
Labour and the BBC will not resist Islamic jihad.
Apart from the useful information provided here by ‘The Times of India’, note the use of the abbreviation ‘Pak’; whereas the use of the word ‘Paki’ is deplored by the ‘politically correct’ in the U.K., including the BBC:
“Mumbai attack: Pak role under scrutiny”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mumbai_attack_Pak_role_under_scrutiny/articleshow/3766765.cms
It reminds me of the “hopeful bombers” description by BBC Scotland after the Glasgow airport islamic jihad “festival”.
If I need to – I think I should point out that there is a rogue Sarah Jane posting. But he/she is quite funny so I look forward to further contribution.
Kill the Beeb and various others I did acknowledge in my first post that revionista would probably show there was a version of the story where DV had a point. The trouble with these webpage things is that they change, so it is my opinion, that is not a great idea to be absolute when criticising them because things change.
Because heaven knows someone may read this blog and think you have a point, or even better, without any reference to this blog think ‘cripes, the t word is missing, and better put something about the possible motivation of these, er, gunmen/militants/etc’ and then leave the original blog article looking a bit lame.
Just a bit of constructive criticism.
And before I dig myself into an even bigger ideological pooper 🙂 I am generally of the opinion that the t word is not used enough, and the fact that eg Peter Taylor can use the word loads without appearing partial just makes the non-use of it look even wierder. There is a point when a judgement becomes a fact, and clinging to non-judgemental wording just looks, well, rubbish.
That said, I will still argue the toss when people make absolutist statements about the beeb, eg they/we never use the t word, are all trots/benders/dhimmis/etc.
Henry Flower writes: “There is nothing new about India being targeted by Islamic terrorists.”
NSS.
My remark was in the context of foreigners being targetted. Although I do think foreigners were only part of it. I have said elsewhere that they were attacking the Indian success story. India is getting rich – through brain power, inventive thought (that new car that sells for US$3,000, or US$3,500 if you want automatic transmission and air-conditioning) and the sheer energy of the country.
Mumbai or Mambai is used by Marathi and Gujarati speakers, and Bambai by Hindi and Urdu speakers. Bombay is, of course, English. The name was officially changed to its Marathi pronunciation of Mumbai in 1996. The push to rename Bombay was part of a larger movement to strengthen Marathi identity in the Maharashtra region.
The BBC doesn’t appear to have consistent rules about when to use local place names and when to use the Anglicized version.
It leads to some oddities as calling the capital of China Beijing rather than Peking but never referring to the place as Zhong Guo, the name in Mandarin. Despite the BBC’s well known biases the city in Israel (not Eretz Yisrael)/ Palestinian Authority (not Filasṭīn) is referred to as Jerusalem not Al Kuds or Yerusalaim or Zion. Köln is always Cologne despite the absence of the French since 1815(?).
I can live with that. The official BBC policy of avoiding the appropriate word for acts of violence designed to frighten or intimidate civilians i.e terrorism, is harder to take and the policy of avoiding the Islamic components of that word simply is deliberately telling half a story.
None of this should be new to Biased-BBC readers. I would be surprised if the BBC reported the events in Bombay in any other fashion.
Sarah Jane,
All your examples of the use of the word “terror” were used in the context of someone’s “claims” or someone’s “statement,”, not simply stated in the report.
Sorry, you’re wrong.
George R – For heaven’s sake, don’t provincially relate everything back to Britain and the stupid BBC. The word Pak has been used in India – especially in newspapers – for 60 years in India; I don’t care what the stupid BBC and he stupid thought fascists in Britain think. The word Pakistan is a hellish length for a sub editor to fit in a headline or sub head. Likewise, Bangladesh is Bangla.
No bob, I do not ‘take it up the pooper’ thank you very much. But I do however like to ‘toss the salad’ particularly when I am out dogging in the woods on a Friday evening.
Sarah Jane,
In four years of the 2nd intifada the BBC never once used the term “terrorism” to describe suicide bombings in Israel in which 1000 innocent Israeli civilians in pizza parlors and busses were blown to bits. The rationale on some days was that the term is too “emotional.” On other days, the Beeboid known as John Reith would comment here that because there was an ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the BBC might be reluctant to use the term. This despite the fact that it did use the term, unattributed, after suicide bombings exploded on London busses, and after homemade bombs were found at Glasgow airport. There is no excuse for either the double standard, nor the inability to distinguish between methodology and ideology, as Arthur Dent has pointed out. By refusing to cast the actions of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist groups in judgmental terms, the BBC earned the kudos of Gaza’s political leadership, which embraced and lauded the Beeb as being part of the struggle and an honest window into hardships of the Palestinians there. If that doesn’t amount to bias, I don’t know what does.
Mumbai: BBC Radio 4 News 8 am –
The BBC has now shifted so far from describing the perpetrators as Islamic jihadists to now calling them merely anonymous ‘GUNMEN’.
On much of MSM coverage of Mumbai:
(from ‘New English Review’ contributor)
[Extract]:
.”. listening to the current coverage of the media’s coverage of the latest atrocity on a grand scale in India, one would have to listen very carefully to discover who the ‘militants’ are in the mass murder of innocent tourists and the engagement of the Indian police and military across Mumbai (Bombay) to end the mayhem and rescue the hostages. The words ‘Islamic’ and ‘Muslim’ are still rarely or reluctantly used by the mainstream media who for the past seven years ever since the attacks of 9/11 want to assure all Americans that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ that only the extremists and militants have ‘hijacked.’ ”
‘Ask not for whom the bell tolls’
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/18176
Can anyone find any substance that the “gunmen” were looking for British and Americans? Most of the locations have no specific connection. I heard one Brit interviewed on site – who was very much alive – claiming HE WAS TOLD the gunmen were looking for British and American passport holders – not evidenced by the indiscriminate carnage. Jewish? Dead randomly include an Australian and Canadian. Is this the “we deserved it, its all because of our foreign policy” narrative desperate attempt to pin it on Bush? No rooms full of executed British and Americam passportholders seem to have been discovered so far. Watch with interest if the anti-war crowd get any more airtime.
Asked whether foreigners were the target of the attacks, the Chief Minister (Vilasrao Deshmukh) disagreed, saying it could not be said.
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080074248
Excellent analysis from the ever-reliable Bill Roggio
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/11/analysis_mumbai_atta.php
Odd how the BBC are keen to keep saying “Jewish centre” but less keen to say “Muslim terrorists” or even “Muslim gunmen”…
Tycoon described hotel drama before his death
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/28/mumbai-terror-attacks-india1
Liveras described the chaos at the hotel to a journalist shortly before he died. He told the BBC
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3301460867790770138/#433598
I really hope it’s not the same bloke.
More wise words from the American blogosphere…
‘A reader remembers that the Indian Navy intercepted a pirate mothership not long ago. Maybe when the Mumbai story is finally told we’ll discover that the intel people knew more than they could act upon. Now the Indian Express reports that its Navy has seized what it believes to be the motherships of the terrorists who attacked its commercial capital.
India apprehended two Pakistani merchant vessels off the coast of Gujarat in a joint operation carried out by the Navy, Coast Guard and the water wing of the Border Security Force (BSF).
“We have apprehended two cargo ships in a joint operation near the Gujarat coast while they were sailing to Karachi. They are suspected to be the ships that ferried the terrorists near to Mumbai coast yesterday,” Home Ministry sources said.
Just imagine what would happen if India blockaded or inspected ships bound for Karachi. The Captain’s Journal describes how NATO operations in Afghanistan are supplied largely through that port. Nothing is simple in that part of the world.
Afghanistan is land-locked, and transportation of supplies and ordnance to U.S. and NATO troops occurs basically in three ways. Ten percent comes into Afghanistan via air supply. The other ninety percent comes in through the port city of Karachi, of which the vast majority goes to the Torkham Crossing (and then to Kabul) via the Khyber pass, with some minor portion going to Kandahar through Chaman.
The struggle against terrorism is always going to force us to choose between painful alternatives. It is mostly about making difficult political and informational choices as it is about kinetic warfare. Right now India doesn’t even know, or can’t even acknowledge, who is attacking it. On the day we can name the enemy — and name our friends — then we will no longer be at the end of the beginning, but at the beginning of the end.’
Richard Fernandez
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/11/27/its-on-tv/#more-1171
Gunmen or terrorists?
BBC reporting is in love with the term “gunmen”. Sorry, not in love, it needs to use this term and to point out in its reporting that it is the more appropriate term even when major players involved in what is happening use other words:
“A policeman I spoke to in the cordon around the hotel said that three gunmen, terrorists as he described them, were still holed up on the fourth floor of the building.”
So The BBC’s Adam Mynott.
The BBC can’t say that the policemen is using politically incorect English, and of course, they can’t say that the policeman is after all Indian, and that his grasp of the English language is somewhat “primitive”. Let’s just say “As he described them” We are only reporting- what are we reporting?
But the BBC shows itself to be rather Orwellian, because it continues to imply that other people are also using this term, when they are almost certainly NOT. Here the BBCs Bias is very revealing:
“Steve Vincent, from Farnborough in the UK, tells reporters at Heathrow airport that he was in his room in the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel when it was stormed by gunmen:”
Excuse me BBC did he really say “Gunmen”?
The BBC then quotes Mumbai police commissioner Hassan Ghafoor , and it appears that he too uses the term “Gunmen”
“One gunman has been arrested, while two or three others are still fighting at Nariman House, he adds. ”
Now I don’t know what the truth is, and what he really said, but I rather suspect that the word “terrorist” was used. Isn’t it sad that the BBCs credibility as a news reporting organisation is so junked that you cannot believe what they write anymore?
Also
The Indian news channel, NDTV, earlier reported that the gunmen had included “British citizens of Pakistani origin”.
Whats the betting that NDTV did NOT use this term?
So now we have British “gunmen” amongst them. When will the BBC be big enough and say British “Terrorists”?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7753639.stm
In short this whole web page and reporting is filled with LIES and DISTORTIONS,
Lt Gen N Thamburaj, head of the Indian army’s Southern Command, also uses the term „gunmen” but for some reason the BBC feels it unnecessary to say “as he described them”. Probably because they know that they would have to say this about 99% of the time, and that it is only the BBC reporters who are using this term.
Mumbai: An anti-dhimmitude aid towards an understanding of the aims of Islamic jihad:
” Fitzgerald: The Mumbai jihadist link to Al-Qaeda, and why it misses the point”
[Extract]:
“What matters is that they are Muslims attacking, attempting to kill, non-Muslims, in order to obtain their aims. And their aims are to weaken — in this particular case — India. And they wish to weaken India in order to make the government of India appease Muslims and meet their demands, whether in Kashmir or in India proper. And once those demands, whatever they may be, are met, other demands from Muslims will be made, and will have to be met, for there is no end to this. The Jihad does not have an end point. There is not a finite goal, but rather an endless series of goals, with each success feeding triumphalism.
“The only time this has not happened, in the past 1350 years, is when Muslims have been stopped, either by superior military power — as outside of Poitiers, or when the Ottomans were repulsed twice at the Gates of Vienna, or by the clear understanding that the Infidels were overwhelmingly more powerful, militarily and economically. That, through the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, was clear to all concerned.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023691.php#more