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?
Mumbai: the BBC News TV live report from there a few minutes ago talks of a confused situation; BBC adds to confusion by describing the Islamic jihad perpetrators as ‘terrorists’ at the Oberoi Hotel, but, in the same breath describing the same group as ‘militants’ at the Jewish centre.
‘Jihadwatch’:
‘Mumbai jihadists freed Turkish hostages because they were Muslims’
[Extract]:
‘Who are the attackers in Mumbai?
‘According to AFP, they’re “militants” and “extremists.”
‘According to the Press Trust of India, they’re “terrorists.”
‘According to the Indian Foreign Minister, they’re backed by “elements in Pakistan.”
‘AP speaks of “suspected Muslim militants,” and the Jerusalem Post dares to write about “Islamic terrorists,” but in general in the mainstream media there is the expected reticence about identifying the attackers as jihadists or as Muslims at all, and no discussion whatsoever of the Islamic texts and teachings that almost certainly inspired them to this spree of murder and mayhem.
‘And some will say: what does it matter? There are “extremists” in every religious tradition. You are intent on identifying these attackers as Muslims and jihadists solely out of some irrational hatred for Islam, or racism, or bigotry, or some such.
‘The response to this is that it is impossible to defeat an enemy one does not understand. Islamic theology and law provide innumerable insights into the behavior and priorities of the jihadists — and that may be why the Organization of the Islamic Conference is so intent on getting the UN to criminalize any critical examination of Islamic texts and teachings, even for counter-terror purposes. It is not “insulting to Islam” to notice that the Mumbai attackers identify themselves as “mujahideen” — that is, jihadists, and jihad is an Islamic religious, legal, and political concept. That concept is in play here in numerous ways, and this story reveals another: the Mumbai jihadists set free their Muslim hostages, almost certainly because of Islamic strictures against fighting against one’s fellow Muslims (cf. Qur’an 4:92, which prohibits a Muslim from killing another Muslim). “‘
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023695.php
BBC links to analysis on one UK blog. A looney leftist one, of course. A blog that omits any mention of the terrorists targeting a Jewish centre:
“2132 From the Lenin’s Tomb blog, Northern Ireland… “
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7752003.stm
BBC staff read far-left blogs for their analysis. Imagine my surprise…
From a comment on Harry’s Place:
“If I were an agent in India…I’d be on the blower to the BBC asking them for a list of the people they’ve taken paintballing recently.”
And the bias continues: News at One reporter on the spot at Chabad House describes the terrorists as ‘attackers’. BBC calls the house a ‘business and residential building’.
Wrong about the first part: Not a business but an outreach/charity.
One can only speculate as to the choice of language.
BBC Radio 4, ‘World at One’: Mumbai: ‘the discovery that two of the gunmen are British only adds to the mystery’.
Not really; after all, in a recent survey:
“UK: Almost 10% of Muslims support Suicide Attacks”
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003823.html
The more important issues relating to this Islamic jihad threat, emanating from the UK, are:
‘Jihadwatch’:
“Britain, exporter of jihadists. Will this revelation lead to any searching questions about what is being taught in mosques in Britain? Will it lead to any public discussion about immigration and assimilation, or about British values and Sharia? Somehow I doubt it.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023694.php
I have made an official complaint to al-beeb about their continual coddling of those poor disadvantaged terrorist murderers who no doubt suffered deprived childhoods which caused them to become depraved adults.
Perhaps more of you might remember at least one of the purposes of this site — call al-beeb to account in the public arena. MAKE A BLOODY COMPLAINT instead of just ranting!
Sarah Jane
I think you should track back, do a more forensic search of the way the story developed at the BBC, and relate it all to the way the BBC usually covers this sort of story. You would have to be blind or deliberately obtuse not to recognise a pattern.
Our core arguments, covered for years at this blogsite, are these :
1. The BBC was forced by public outrage to revert to using the T word after the London bombings – the T word had been edited out of their original headline but had to be replaced. (We here helpd to stir the public outrage, by alerting other parts of the media to the stupid game the BBC had played.) We now have a PATTERN that killings or attempted/planned killings of people in the UK can be described by the BBC as terrorism, the perpetrators can be described as terrorists. Various euphemisms are also used, far too often – but the T word is not DE FACTO banned for UK stuff.
2 For overseas atrocities – even if they involve British citizens as victims, the BBC usually only employs the T word if it is quoting someone eg a police chief or a government minister. (But often the BBC will go so far as to delete the T word from the quote and substitute its own euphemnism. We have noted cases of that, where the BBC gave a false report of what was said – that is, the BBC is lying and usually knows it is lying.)
3 The PATTERN for overseas atrocities is that the T word is never used, or very seldom used, except when in quotes as in 2 above. That is, Beslan was not described by the BBC itself as terrorism, the attackers were labelled “militants” or whatever. Bali was not terrorism in the BBC’s eyes. Attacks on tourists in Egypt are not terrorism. Suicide murder-attacks in Israel are not described as terrorism by the BBC. Al Qaeda in Iraq admitting to blowing up crowds of people in Iraqi market places is not seen by the BBC as terrorism. And now, in most of the reporting of the Bombay outrage the BBC has not itself described the attackers as terrorists. Even though all those on the scene call them terrorists, even though most of the rest of the media (apart from the trio of BBC/Reuters/AP) call the attacks terrorism. Even though the vast majority of the British licence-fee payers would have no problem in calling the attacks terrorism.
4 All this spineless moral equivalance, this endless squirming to try to avoid using the T word directly, is then compounded by the BBC failing to state the obvious – that everything points to this being Islamist terrorism, or terrorism by Muslims. Everyone I know has joined the dots – this is yet another instance of a PATTERN of Islamist terrorism. The I or M word should be central to any BBC story. Is it ? No it is not. If the I or M word is involved, it is often in the sort of (deliberately?) confusing way employed by Frank Gardner – it is just one of various possibilities.
In sum – nothing David Vance said in his original post was wrong. The Newssniffer site and people here confirm that.
Can you contradict the PATTERN I have instanced above ? A PATTERN we have had confirmed to us many times by BBC apologists like Nick Reynolds?
“Anonymous” at 1.55pm was me
It is doubtful that the terrorists ‘targeted’ the Chabad House. Indian television (IBN) has several times said they ended there after a battle with police. From the gunmen’s point of view, I guess, they lucked out.
The BBC frequently relies on indirect or reported speech (said that …) to avoid using the word ‘terrorist’ even when the speaker has used this word.
I don’t speak any Indian language but I have reasonably fluent Hebrew and have caught them mistranslating Israeli government spokespeople and Army officers saying ‘militant’ when they have used the Hebrew word for ‘terrorist’.
It is no surprise that they do the same in Mumbai.
Speculation at this site that the group in Pakistan that may have been behind the Mumbai attacks was also linked to the London attacks.
Which would put the focus even more on – what the hell do we do about Pakistan ?
One obvious move would be to ban any travel from Britain to pakistan by men under, say, 35, except after the most stringent enquiries. And if people evade that by going eg to Europe and then on to Karachi – make that a criminal offence, and if possible refuse re-entry.
Just the sort of issue that is verboten at the BBC ! Bury our heads in the sand, just wait for the next attacks being fomented and trained in Pakistan.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mumbai-attacks-highlight-the-cancer-that-is-pakistan/
-from ‘Front page magazine’ –
“The Moderate Islamist”
[Extract]:
“How many Islamists does it take to change a light bulb? None. We do it for them.”
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F0E3CD3B-BC90-482A-B5B7-E575A9BDBB45
JohnA:
It really does show what a sinister outfit the BBC is. Remarkable that this sort of ideological stranglehold exists- that it is acknowledged by all Beeboids (in a freemasonry kind of manner) and slavishly adhered to. I guess the moral sloppiness of Ross and Brandt is right at the other end of the scales , and is something that is not taken seriously.
Memo for Labour (and for BBC), lessons for Britain too:
“India’s anti-terror errors, -years of caving to Islamic militants has made the problem worse” (S.Dhume, ‘Wall Street Journal Asia’).
[Extract]:
“In sum, the Indian approach to terrorism has been consistently
haphazard and weak-kneed.
When faced with fundamentalist demands,
India’s democratically elected leaders have regularly preferred
caving to confrontation on a point of principle.
The country’s institutions and culture have abetted a widespread
sense of Muslim separateness from the national mainstream.
The country’s diplomats
and soldiers have failed to stabilize the neighborhood.
The on-going drama in Mumbai underscores the price both
Indians and non-Indians caught unawares must now pay.”
http://islamicterrorism.wordpress.com/
Professor Sumantra Bose, also using the BBC term “Gunmen” says:
“It is tempting to label the attackers as “crazies”. But such a dismissive appellation may be misplaced.”
I wonder if Bose would accept the method in madness of the BBC in speaking of them as “Gunmen”, or if Bose’s own contribution has been itself edited? Sad that even reading contributions by academics on the BBC web sites, the credibility of his own use of “Gunmen” is questioned and that the quality of LIES and DISTORTIONS of texts and what people are actually saying is always present.
So did Bose use the term “gunmen” or “terrorists”? Did the BBC contact him up and ask him to change the language?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7753876.stm
Sarah Jane | 27.11.08 – 3:17 pm
I saw a comment about the use of the word ‘audacious’ again. I do hope not, that is unnacceptable. Dieppe was ‘audacious’, this is murdering civilians in a hotel.
Audacious is still proudly displayed by the despicable BBC in the caption to the photo in that article. You seem surprised that the BBC would do this. You should know by now that this is the standard BBC tactic of downplaying terrorism from its Muslim friends.
Yesterday on the World Service, when the impact of the horror in Bombay was first being felt, the T word was used occasionally and, amazingly, without quoting others in reports:
…terror attacks leave 100 dead…
…20 hours since they brought terror to Mumbai
But by today I guess a memo had gone out because the T word had been shelved, replaced by the typical BBC minimising of the impact of terror:
…where Islamic militants have taken hostages…
…being held by gunmen…
…these young men came ashore….
…determined gunmen who struck so suddenly…
I find those last two absolutely despicable. If the BBC wants to use adjectives, how about murderous or barbaric? How about a term that actually describes the attack?
This is absolutely disgraceful reporting from the BBC. People are beginning to understand whose side the BBC is on.
If there are one or two people left at the BBC who genuinely want to try to arrest the deterioration and the slide into dhimmitude, they should read the comments on this thread.
Its the narrative courtesy of Chompsky et al : Post-modernism (North London Polytechnic Upper First) – “One man’s terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Who are we to judge?” Duh. When confronted by terrorism, cop out from moral judgement, do the cowardly Chompsky-thing.
When a screwed-up brainwashed twenty-something Muslim convert embarks on trying to kill you – remember the narrative. Its your fault, not his.
Haven’t looked at all the messages here, but has anyone else noticed that the BBC news website is saying that there is no evidence of a British connection with the Bombay attacks, whereas everything else I’ve read says there IS a British connection. Al-Beeb in their usual denial situation over those cuddly muslims.
Jim T
Yes; the BBC is very reluctant to even discuss the possibility that some Muslims born in Britian were invloved in the Mumbai Islamic jihad massacre.
Several newspapers are discussing this issue, referring to possible evidence, but the BBC’s dhimmitude runs deep.
‘Telegraph’:
“Mumbai attacks: Are they British?”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/3534784/Mumbai-attacks-Are-they-British.html
‘Daily Mail’:
“Were seven Britons in the terror gang? Security chiefs probe Yorkshire link to Mumbai attacks”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1090373/Were-seven-Britons-terror-gang-Security-chiefs-probe-Yorkshire-link-Mumbai-attacks.html
BBC: your dhimmi attitude towards Islam is well known; your hidden agenda to impose your ‘multicultural’ project on Britsh society continues apace; your eagerness to stick to the Brown-Miliband line on any British-Muslim connection with Mumbai Islamic jihad, puts you in the same journalistic bracket as Al Jazeera TV.
‘Times’:
‘Britons are among those detained, official claims’
[Extract]:
“Patrick Mercer, MP, a former Conservative security
spokesman, told The Times that he had been given information that at least two of the terrorists had credit cards and other identifying documents that linked them to Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. Other reports last night claimed that men from Leeds and Bradford were among the terrorists.
“Mr Mercer said he had also been told that the terrorists arrived with only basic communications but had then seized mobile phones and BlackBerries from their hostages and used them to contact each other and monitor world reaction. The claims were not substantiated by official British sources. They said there was no evidence ‘at this stage’ that Britons had taken part, although they acknowledged that events were ‘moving fast’ and more information was emerging.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5254350.ece
Even the ‘Yorkshire Post’ discusses what the BBC, because of its political agenda, is reluctant to discuss:
“Were Terrorists British?”
[Extract]:
“Unconfirmed reports last night said several of the terrorists were from the Leeds and Bradford area while it was also claimed that identification found on some of the gunmen showed they had links with Dewsbury.
“All four of the London bombers who carried out the murderous attacks on July 7, 2005 were from West Yorkshire and last night’s reports raised fears that the region has produced more terrorists.
“Bradford West Labour MP Marsha Singh said: ‘If there is a British involvement that is diabolical. This was not just an attack on India but on the entire world.'”
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Were-terrorists-British.4742867.jp
For BBC:
‘Express’:
“Butchers of Mumbai are Brits”
[Extract]:
“Highly-placed sources in India claimed that at least seven of the killers, who caused carnage in India’s commercial centre, had strong British connections.
“Two of them were said to come from Leeds, as did two of the four London July 7 bombers.
“Another of the gunmen • all believed to be from Pakistani backgrounds • was alleged to have links to Bradford in West Yorkshire and a fourth to Hartlepool on Teesside. Investigations are also underway in Dewsbury, Yorkshire.”
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/73438
Superficial ‘lessons’ learnt by BBC on Mumbai. I’ll write its provisional report for it:
‘This was an audacious raid in Mumbai. It was often a confusing and frightening situation. We had many reporters there, eventually.
‘The Indian government says that the attack came from outside India. The Pakistan government says that Pakistan was not involved. Brown, Miliband and the BBC ignore the multiculturally unfair speculation that there is a British connection.
‘As for the suggestion that Mumbai was some sort of international Islamic jihad terror (which included British-born jihadists), planned to continue and extend the global Islamic jihad against infidels, can be ignored.
‘We, at the BBC, and BBC World Service, without being self-congratulatory, think that we did a good job on Mumbai. At least as good as our colleagues at Al Jazeera TV.’
I am in Los Angeles this week, visiting some older people who are Democrat voters and who like watching an hour of BBC news each evening. I told them that I regard the BBC as supremely biased, always twisting the news. They were shocked by this thought. So I told them to watch closely the BBC treatment of Mumbai – which took about 10 minutes or more on the Friday edition. I told them that the T word would NEVER be used to describe the attackers. Sure enough – it wasn’t. We had “militants”, “gunmen” etc. But no terrorists.
My hosts were amazed at this.
I also told them that the BBC’s coverage suggesting there was no substance to the idea that some of the terrorists were British Pakistanis probably meant that they WERE.
Even the arch-liberal Los Angeles Times headlines “Terrorists” on its Saturday front page. And includes ample stuff on the distinct likelihood that some of the terrorists were from Britain.
Meanwhile here’s mark Steyn’s piece on why we are put in danger by all this politically-correct rubbish about the sources of the terrorism :
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTk5YzgwZDc3NTliMDAwM2QxOGNjOWRmNTZjZTZmNDY=
John A: “I am in Los Angeles this week, visiting some older people who are Democrat voters and who like watching an hour of BBC news each evening.”
Are these people friends and relatives, or are you researching an extremely specific demographic group for undisclosed reasons?
Old friends from business days
To anyone interested in our unfolding knowledge on the BOMBAY massacre this on the one surviving perpetrators “confession”
http://tinyurl.com/5hmdth