Here’s a fascinating and comprehensive description of a Muslim terrorist:
‘militant Islamists sympathetic to al-Qaeda’
Always like that ‘militant’ bit, as if they were just a bit bolshy and gobby when in fact they had come dressed to kill, so to speak:
They ‘were heavily armed with rifles and equipped with bullet-proof vests and explosive belts.’
Kevin Connolly explains why the Israelis get rocketed:
‘Israel’s options in responding to Friday’s attack are constrained, reports BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Marcus.
In the past it has chosen to attack Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, prompting rocket fire on Israel in return.’
If only those bloody Israelis would just leave the Palestinians in peace!
I’m pleased the muslims died; I’m sorry to learn that yet another Israeli has been killed by muslims. Why can’t the bbc reporters (Mr Bowen) embed themselves with the ‘militants’ so we can get the kind of report that many of us would love to see/ read about.
Nothing heartens me more than hearing of an Israeli attack on the savages of the Gaza strip or elsewhere.
Cue Jew-hating leftist trolls in 5, 4, 3…
Why can’t the bbc reporters (Mr Bowen) embed themselves with the ‘militants’ so we can get the kind of report that many of us would love to see/ read about.
You are wrong…BBC reporters Mr Bowen AND
THEIR FAMILIES should set up shop in the southern Israeli city of Sderot and denied the use of bomb shleters!!
“In the past it has chosen to attack Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, prompting rocket fire on Israel in return.’”
Sorry?….What?
No wonder the Balen report won’t be hitting ofcoms desk any time soon.
I suppose all those “militantly” British penguins “prompted” Galtieri to invade the Falklands, too.
The British army refer to the Taleban as militants. It is an accurate and valid description
jihadi s
Yeah, right, whatever.
how do you know?
I bet the squaddies on the ground don’t refer to them as “militants”.
Quite David, as demonstrated here 😉
http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2010/03/army-hit-by-new-race-row-as-it-prints-perceived-slur-in-its-own-magazine/
Jim Dandy wrote:
The British army refer to the Taleban as militants. It is an accurate and valid description
Taken from the British army website:
Why are we in Afghanistan
Because it became a source of terrorism. The Taliban gave safe haven to Al Qaeda, which allowed terrorists to plan and carry out attacks around the world. That is why the United Nations authorised a NATO/ISAF-led military intervention. Getting rid of the Taliban regime and Al Qaeda was only the first part of the job. The second is to make sure they cannot return.
http://www.army.mod.uk/operations-deployments/22713.aspx
Seems it’s cherry-picking Jim, and just as we know it.
After 13 years of a Labour PC government, I am not in the slightest bit surprised.
* 15 years
Evidence, please.
I think soldiers in the British Army have other names for the Taliban. And may I ask people not to call them ‘rag heads’ it is offensive. Their head gear is made from a folded sheet. It is more appropriate to call them ‘Sheet heads’.
Connolly has form for inciting terrorism. See his viciously anti-British and pro-republican piece at –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/archive/chronicle/theindependentmessenger.shtml
It’s funny how the Beeboids are so proud of granting air time to terrorists and other vicious types, but have to be dragged kicking and screaming to give air time to “opponents of the consensus” on global warming.
Very good point.
Maybe the extent of their viciousness is not yet settled?
It’s something I’d be keen to see debated here by the defenders of the indefensible, but suspect Pounce has rather effectively made the area ‘safe’.
Looks like I was wrong on the ‘mine, mine, mine’ clearance.
But at least the holes being dug sowing them are awesome.
FFS Alan do you own a dictionary, or can you get someone to show you how to use Google?
adj
1. aggressive or vigorous, esp in the support of a cause a militant protest
2. warring; engaged in warfare
ah! back from dragging his knuckles over the bbc complaints page – re D.Vance
But you accept there are other words that could be used, right?
The usual aimless controversists pop up to squabble about whether or when a terrorist becomes a militant or vice versa.
It really is majoring on minors…semantics that mean f***all to Israelis getting bombed just because they won`t offer their necks to Islam.
That simple enough for you lads?
And if you really DO care about what we call the scum that behead a Bigley, kill a Hassan, torture a Pearl or a Berg…wipe out Fogels…you know…”insurgents” or “resurgents” say?…then maybe you could give us chapter and verse (or, more likely in your cases, Sura and supporting hadith)…on what Connolly could possibly have intended us all to think when he says
“In the past, Israel has “CHOSEN to ATTACK”…why not been “forced to defend or to target?”
You pedants deliberately choose to miss the point at times ,doncha?”
Comments like alan’s illustrate the intellectual idleness of this site. No work is ever done. Toss out some unresearched, Ill-thought out idea, wrap it up in some assetoric statements.
Why did Alan put it in in the first place? Because in his characteristically cack-handed way he is seeking to undermine the credibility of the report by attempting to show prejudice in the choice of language. Unfortunately all he has done is to demonstrate his own ignorance, as if we needed any more evidence.
Stick to the facts, construct an argument, provide the evidence. But no, that is too hard. Make up any old shit no matter how conjectural, how ungrounded, how speculative.
Nicked Emus what would you do to solve the very genuine worries people on this site have about Islam?
*Intellectual idleness .
*No work is ever done.
*Toss out some unresearched, Ill-thought out idea, wrap it up in some assetoric statements.
*Characteristically cack-handed way.. seeking to undermine the credibility… by attempting to show prejudice in the choice of language.
*Demonstrate own ignorance.
*Failure to stick to the facts, construct an argument, provide the evidence. *Make up any old shit no matter how conjectural, how ungrounded, how speculative.
In the irony-free manner so beloved of the ‘this is so pointless we keep coming back to say how pointless it all is’, petty grammar nazi, cherry vulture entity currently known as Drs. Scezandymanus from Oslo, none of that applies to many of Alan’s posts, and little to none with this one.
Why? Because like you seem to think makes it so, because I now say so back, with knobs on.
And even if he did err in delivery, he’s often offering an in complement opinion as a co-posting commentator on a free forum.
Now, as ALL of those apply, too often, to the £4Bpa, so-called professional, so-called impartial national media monopoly, and its well-paid editors, especially in their ‘news’ treatment of anything from the ME neck of the woods (each one could have a URL to a post here attached, with URLs to clear factual evidence of all of them.. and not in a good way to help Helen’s daft claims), instead of trawling here making daft contrarian drive-by claims, what are YOU doing elsewhere to get the coverage the British public is fed back to a form that is based on actual objective fact rather than edict-directed agenda?
Sod all. That’s what.
Thank heavens each time you post, it backfires in such spectacular ways to whatever cause you think you are supporting.
Well said sir!
The aimless controversists like Mr Emus only convince me further that this site is onto something…as opposed to on something.
Just heard the 3pm news today(Sat) on Radio 4…would Mr Emus, Daz etc do a little research into just how OFSTEDs head brings out “the teaching unions”…let us know , maybe, when the BBC ever regarded anything that “accuses” the teaching unions of ANYTHING; as being worth a mention on the news-let alone a constant repetition each and every hour.
And whilst you`re at it lads-maybe you could tell us just how sex abuse accusations in Victoria, Australia becomes a news story out of a clear blue sky…for there it is, every hour?
Instead of popping at the likes of Alan, why not-just ONCE take any one of these news massage events, and give us YOUR interpretation of how and why such stories make the news-and why others such as Fast and Furious, jailing of SEN girls in Pakistan, or Rochdale sex grooming scandals do not…come on lads…we`ll wait for your answer…or is this an “inappropriate font” I`m using?
God Bless Israel-the USA-and all friends of this site…
And as for you Waldorfs, Statlers in the critics section?
“I hope some day, you will join us-and the world will live as one eh?”-to quote Ayn Rand!
Nick, we can also use Google. A brief search reveals;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant#Mass_media_usage
“Newspapers, magazines, and other information sources may deem militant a neutral term,[20] whereas terrorist[21] or guerrilla[22] conventionally indicates disapproval of the behavior of the individual or organization so labeled, regardless of the motivations for such behavior. “
This for most people is a common interpretation of the meaning of “militant”.
It’s an accepted norm to regard people who resort to the use of extreme violence to promote their cause as terrorism. Such acts are usually associated with the intention to kill and maim.
The term militant is usually used to describe people who indulge in anti-social behaviour like rioting or vandalism to further their aims.
Personally I believe that terrorism in all its forms has become too common and there needs to be a new definition in International law that defines terrorism. An example would be that it is a group of unelected people that engage in attacks, with intention to kill or maim civilian populations, to further their political, religious or ethnic ambitions.
‘Prejudice in the choice of language’ you say?
The complete and utter absence of even the slightest self-awareness really is beyond parody.
The BBC chooses to use the euphemism militants because it refuses to define the word terrorist or terrorism. Many words in English have multiple meanings but ‘terrorist’, as far as I know, is the only one where the BBC actually instructs its staff to avoid usage.
It is far from consistent in this policy. As far as I know no BBC person has every been reprimanded for calling Anders Breivik a terrorist.