Damian Thompson in the Telegraph thinks there is quite a lot in ‘a name’:
Kenya terror attack: disgracefully, the BBC still won’t call these murderers ‘terrorists’
I suppose it is hard to quantify exactly what constitutes a ‘terrorist’.
A group which kills 61 people, deliberately selecting non-Mulsims, and then apparently burning off their faces and cutting off their hands to prevent identification, may have justifiable political aims or pressing social grievances against the ‘system’ that may explain their actions.
To call them terrorists is to adopt a narrative that is judgemental, one based upon a Western notion of right and wrong. We cannot impose our Western values and reasoning upon other cultures.
Nor can we impose them upon the Labour Party.
The BBC in contrast to its ‘ethical’ stance on the labelling of terrorists is quite happy to adopt the Labour narrative about the spare bedroom subsidy….or as Labour calls it, the Bedroom Tax.
The BBC seems to have decided to get around any checks on its use of politically nuanced language by just adding ‘as Labour calls it’ to any mention of the ‘Bedroom Tax’.
The dictionary definition of a terrorist says
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
Terrorism is defined as:
1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. A terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
There doesn’t seem to be much scope for doubt.
“The BBC seems to have decided to get around any checks on its use of politically nuanced language by just adding ‘as Labour calls it’ to any mention of the ‘Bedroom Tax’”
They are even more devious than that and I have frequently heard “which critics call the bedroom tax” and no mention of Labour.
It’s like they know we know.. But still don’t care.
The gang religion of Islam
Killing non-Muslims is the point of Islam. To the extent that it has any point. That isn’t to say that Islam doesn’t preach the virtues of charity and love for one’s fellow Muslim. It does. But its virtues are not original. Like most of the rest of the framework of it, they are lifted from existing religions.
When the Sahih Muslim’s Hadith quotes Mohammed as saying, “None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself”; it’s a distortion of the Christian Bible. And when Obama quotes the Koran as saying, “If any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people,” it’s an equally shameless plagiarism of the Jewish Talmud.
Like the Soviet Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion, these are nice sentiments borrowed from other people and then not actually put into practice. The Islam that matters is the one that’s put into practice not only at the World Trade Center or the Westgate Mall, but in the everyday lives of people in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Islamic violence we are told is an aberration. But it isn’t. To the extent that Islam is anything, it is violence.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-gang-religion-of-islam.html
Like the Mafia, if you are in the family, you leave at your peril. Cosa Sharia would be a better name for Islam. A large fraction of Muslims in Britain are unemployed. They live by conning the taxpayer of tens of thousands each year. Its piracy, but not dishonourable, as it is viewed as Jizya(danegeld), that the kuffar has to pay. .
could always call them rebels,that just got me thinking,why has the bbc not called them rebels.
Lloyd George was a rebel, so yes, why not.
MMMmmmm…. and Lloyd George was also probably responsible for the needless deaths of thousands of British soldiers when he constantly over-ruled and meddled in the conduct of the fighting on the Western Front, no better than some of the General Staff, and at the same time trying to keep his trousers up amongst the ladies. By the way, he added the name ‘David’ to make himself look better. Precious little Welsh runt.
Have a heart.
As far as I can see, there are two different meanings of ‘terrorism’.
– The old one: para-military groups as opposed to regular armies. The adage ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’, refers to this meaning. If it was still current, I would agree to avoid the word as the Beeboids do. Unfortunately for them, it isn’t.
– The current meaning, as understood by most humans except Beeboids: Anyone who indiscriminately targets civilians as opposed to combatants, and this for the purpose of terrorizing a government into submission.
This definition is clear cut, mirrors the Geneva Conventions, and nobody should have a problem using it. The Beeboids do.
Terrorism is use of violence as a means of coercion. Anyone who uses terrorism does so because in, ‘their view’, that is the only reasonable (sic) way to achieve their aims. No other option in, ‘their view’, being open to them.
What differs between outright violence against usually unarmed and defenseless people, and actions against a government, whether it be democratically elected or not, is that those who are committing these criminal acts, do so because that feel that have no political capital and as a consequence, little to lose. The IRA, ANC and the PLO are good examples of organizations which have used terror in the past, but now have renounced (to some extent) violence and have chosen the ballot box over the bullet.
Other groups, like the Red Army Faction and the Baader Meinhof Gang did not have a hope in hell as the populace would never support them. That meant that the democratically elected government could pursue them knowing that they had support of the populace.
The acts of terrorism that we have seen are very different. They are not about politics or fighting for the rights of an oppressed minority, quite the opposite in some cases. This is religion, and religious persecution. This is about using terrorism or, the threat of terrorism, to either subjugate either a minority or majority in to an action that under democratic and free process would not normally happen. You are being made to choose between subjugation or extermination. Slavery, or extinction !
Therefore, the saying of, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” simply does not apply. Freedom, unless under the rule of the terrorist, is no freedom at all.
I think we would ALL do well to remember that.