Paris attacks: Do not call Charlie Hebdo killers ‘terrorists’, BBC says
Tarik Kafala, the head of BBC Arabic, the largest of the BBC’s non-English language news services, said the term “terrorist” was too “loaded” to describe the actions of the men who killed 12 people in the attack on the French satirical magazine.
Mr Kafala, whose BBC Arabic television, radio and online news services reach a weekly audience of 36 million people, told The Independent: “We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist. What we try to do is to say that ‘two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine’. That’s enough, we know what that means and what it is.”
Mr Kafala said: “Terrorism is such a loaded word. The UN has been struggling for more than a decade to define the word and they can’t. It is very difficult to. We know what political violence is, we know what murder, bombings and shootings are and we describe them. That’s much more revealing, we believe, than using a word like terrorist which people will see as value-laden.”
That’s just utter nonsense….there is a basic definition of terrorism…as defined by the Oxford Dictionary…one that most people would agree with:
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims
‘Political aims’ can of course encompass ‘religious’ ones as religion is just as political as it is supposedly spiritual.
The UN’s problem with defining terrorism isn’t a definition of what acts are ‘terrorist’ in nature but with who could be defined as terrorist…a different thing altogether…
The search for an agreed definition usually stumbles on two issues. The first is the argument that any definition should include States’ use of armed forces against civilians. We believe that the legal and normative framework against State violations is far stronger than in the case of non-State actors and we do not find this objection to be compelling. The second objection is that peoples under foreign occupation have a right to resistance and a definition of terrorism should not override this right. The right to resistance is contested by some. But it is not the central point: the central point is that there is nothing in the fact of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians.
What happened in Paris is a clear case of terrorism carried out by people affiliated to known terrorist organisations and the questions raised at the UN have no bearing on whether this is terrorism or not…it clearly is.
And of course the BBC has no problem using other people’s language when it comes to Israeli ‘war crimes’…
Amnesty: Israeli strikes on Gaza buildings ‘war crimes’
And as BBC Watch points out…
BBC’s Bowen promotes accusations of Israeli ‘war crimes’
That’s despite Kafala reporting that the definition of a ‘war crime’ is always evolving and never static…despite that the ICC manages to not only come to a working definition of a war crime but also to prosecute and sentence ‘war criminals’. Funny how that works and yet the BBC Kafala wants to dodge the uncomfortable truth about an act of Islamic terrorism…..
|
|
Anyone reading Kafala’s statement would have to assume he has some sympathy with the terrorist murderers judging by his attempt to downplay the nature of their crimes.
It is a fairly blatant attempt not to ‘upset’ Muslims and go with their narrative….in other words as they don’t see it as a crime perhaps…..adopting their language and definitions.
The BBC is introducing a parallel system of reporting news, one news for non-Muslims, another narrative for Muslims…never mind the truth, just report what the most violent sector of a community want to hear and have a peaceful life.
In a wide-ranging interview about faith and broadcasting, Mr Thompson disclosed that producers were faced with the possibilities of “violent threats” instead of normal complaints if they broadcast certain types of satire.
“Without question, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms’, is different from, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write’,” he said. “This definitely raises the stakes.”
The BBC’s guidelines, questionable in themselves say:
We try to avoid the use of the term “terrorist” without attribution.
Note that ‘without attribution’….well as pretty much everyone was quite clear that this was a case of terrorism there is an abundance of ‘attribution’ to fall back on should the BBC lack the backbone to make the call themselves.
The BBC guidelines go on….
We should not adopt other people’s language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.
By not using the word terrorism they adopt the language of the terrorist and those who wish to whitewash what has happened….Kafala himself isn’t shy about using language that is very definitely the preferred line for Palestinians when he calls the IDF the ‘ Israeli occupation army’.
Terrorism isn’t some abstract word that has no meaning, it has a specific meaning that most reasonable people would agree on….the BBC has introduced an element of relativity into how it should be defined when there isn’t any….and it has introduced that relativity in order to downplay the nature of the act and to assuage the feelings of those who support such acts however obliquely and quietly. Terrorism is terrorism however good and noble the cause is.
Killing 10 cartoonists is neither good nor noble. Killing four defenceless Jews is not good nor noble.
Just the act of cowards and terrorists in the name of Allah and the furtherance of his ideology across Europe.
About time the BBC called a terrorist a terrorist and stopped self-censoring and pandoring to those who ‘complain in the strongest possible terms and are loading their AK47s as they write.’
Supplementary.
‘Express’-
“Head of BBC Arabic: ‘Don’t call Charlie Hebdo killers ‘terrorists.'”
Final sentence from above-
“The 24-hour BBC Arabic Television news channel, which is part of the world service, was launched in 2008 and is now exclusively funded by UK taxpayers.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/554335/BBC-boss-don-t-call-Charlie-Hebdo-killers-terrorists?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daily-express-world-news+%28Daily+Express+%3A%3A+World+Feed%29
The Islamisation of INBBC-
1.) Head of Religion and Ethics:
Aaqil Ahmed.
2.) Head of Arabic TV:
Tarik Kafala.
Posting from the anonymity of his keyboard Alan has obviously no problem in potentially upsetting those who may “complain in the strongest possible terms and are loading their AK47s as they write.”
Maybe Alan can take the lead here and show the BBC what “backbone” is all about and come out from behind the keyboard and tell us all who he really is and where he lives.
Tu quoque, Albaman.
By the way, hope your Burns Night went well.
Ahhhh, the old attack the poster rather than the argument tactic so beloved by those who defend Alan.
Where did you ever deploy an argument?
The potential for any others who refer to the practice of pseudonymous posting on occasion in negative terms (unless they do it) to read this and resist adding their blessings, must be presenting quite the dilemma.
‘Posting from the anonymity of his keyboard Alan has obviously no problem in potentially upsetting those who may “complain in the strongest possible terms and are loading their AK47s as they write.”
Maybe Alan can take the lead here and show the BBC what “backbone” is all about and come out from behind the keyboard and tell us all who he really is and where he lives. ‘
What a sinister post.
Sinister, in what way? Only pointing out that being an anonymous “blogger” requires very little “backbone”.
You suggested Alan declares who he is and where he lives after pointing out that he is upsetting gun-toting terrorists. Thus there was an inference that he should make himself a target.
If the connection wasn’t intentional I suggest you review your posts before sending them.
Sorry, but was Alan not suggesting that the BBC lacked “backbone” by not making their presenters, journalists and employees “targets”.
You really can’t have it both ways – but then again, this being bBBC, you probably can.
No, that wasn’t what Alan was saying. It’s what Mark Thompson implied. What Alan was arguing for was the use of consistent and accurate terminology, rather than the loaded vocabulary endlessly displayed today, where Palestinian and other muslim terrorists are never defined as such, while any number of emotive terms are routinely trotted out against Israel.
It’s interesting that you think that calling a terrorist a “terrorist” is potentially life-threatening. You should get down to the “islamophobia” clinic immediately.
Why be bashful old chap(ess), come out from behind that desk in Salford and reveal yourself to your waiting audience, mmmm?
Ahhh, that other tried and tested biased bbc tactic – anyone who has the affront to disagree with Alan must work for the BBC!!
Sky, guardian, independent, huffington post ? come come old bean, give us a little bit of ankle, you old tease you !
I’d love to know why Alan doesn’t come out from behind his curtain the reap the glory. The poor soul spends most of week writing unreadable collections of misquotes, misinterpretations and BIG PRINT (no doubt because the average punter here has difficulty reading) which are rarely even commented upon!
Come out and reveal yourself….oh you are a bit bald…
‘I’d love to know why Alan doesn’t come out from behind his curtain …Come out and reveal yourself’
A coincidental No.38 bus amalgamation, or simply the new strategic memo being followed a bit too enthusiastically by the stout of backbone?
‘Maybe Alan can take the lead here and show the BBC what “backbone” is all about and come out from behind the keyboard and tell us all who he really is and where he lives.’
Meanwhile, elsewhere, BBC inaccuracy, lack of objectivity and integrity gets raised and debated by most not stuck in a singular, tried and tested, groove.
Note: this post will likely be deemed ‘the old hostilities started when the attack was countered’ follow-up… attack by those hard of logic and high on dudgeon.
Good luck with that.
Another all too familiar BBBC tactic. When one argument is demolished, complain that every other worthless utterance hasnt been addressed.
And when it is, repeat it Ad infinitum anyway. And the Guest Who tactic, repeat Ad infinitum, just in coded language that no-one else understands except him.
Yo, Jerry… long time no hear!
“Another all too familiar BBBC tactic…
… And the Guest Who tactic.., just in coded language that no-one else understands except him”.
Well, to the last, as someone (you know who you are, you tinker) once said, ‘if you say so’.
Odd that if no one, especially you, understands it, you appear to know that whatever it may be it exercises you so much this lack of understanding must be expressed at every, ‘tell it often enough’ opportunity. Now, hold that strategic messaging continuity thought.
Can’t prove it of course, in the same way no other protestething-too-much pseudonymonous poster (even when bizarrely challenged to do so, with PIN number and leg measurements) can, but lone wolf me. Honest.
And now there’s a lot of tactics here. Maybe a tactic tactic? Who knows? The truth will out. Oh, no. That’s already out. TheTruthiness, BBC-style, maybe?
I merely observe, on this very thread, those that move, and coordinate, in packs around the individual if a pincer-flanking move is interrupted…
‘Ahhhh, the old attack the poster rather than the argument tactic..
Do you guys compare notes? Rather, do you not at least compare enough to avoid intoning the same mantra?
Especially the ongoing ‘let’s not address BBC inaccuracy, lack of objectivity and integrity’ (hate to disappoint)… tactic.
Good to have you back, buddy. You make the BBC’s case look stronger every outing. No, really.
INBBC:- ‘don’t mention Islam’-
“Egypt FGM trial ‘convicts doctor of manslaughter.'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30983027
By any normal definition that bases itself on reality the attacks in Paris were terrorist attacks. Designed to inflict terror. Orwell should be here to see just how true his warnings were about these corruptors of language.
AS Solhenitzin said ( and I make no apology for repeating it)
Let the lie come into the world but not through me.
Something our media would do well to live and write by in these dark times.
I was very surprised to read Tarik Kafala’s comments. The Paris murders were clearly acts to terrify newspapers not to publish cartoons of Mohamed. Therefore the killers are terrorists. Unfortunately these tactics seem to work, certainly as far as the BBC is concerned.
I’m not sure the BBC were terrorised. They’ve always been at the forefront of the battle for censorship when it comes to anything vaguely critical or questioning of the Religion Of Peace (TM) (C) BBC Worldwide Enterprises.
I smell a lawyer and that great little lawyer’s earner from the Blair Years – “Employers duty of care”
If the BBC showed the cartoons, and gunmen burst into BBC offices and killed everyone responsible, the BBC failed in its employers duty of care to protect them from harm., putting them at risk.
No win No fee.
Blair wins every time.
For INBBC to report, or censor?
Front-page headline story of today’s ‘Daily Star’-
“Scottish jihadi bride who travelled to Syria to join terror group writes guide for widows.
A JIHADI bride who left Britain to marry an Islamic State fighter has written a guide to living as a war widow – sparking rumours her husband may have been killed.”
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/421993/JIhadi-girl-left-Britain-marry-Isis-militant-widow-guide
This latest news doesn’t seem to be on their website but a few months ago the BBC, remarkably enough, published what seems to be a rather explicit photo of her:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-29029954
Get yer face out for the lads!
Oh, alright, just your eyes then….
Gawd, I was getting in a right muck sweat looking at that picture, my imagination was in overdrive. Mrs Slocombe eat yer heart out !
Mummy, mummy, where are you ? I’m here darling !
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/676/cache/adilie-penguin-flapping-wings_67655_990x742.jpg?01AD=3ZKuMKkZfqku-kTDh6L9Ttmj1mnG0Keu57sYY4Fd4WIUyswp0dtG2Xw&01RI=3C8955424D6B012&01NA=na
Are you sure you’re my mummy? How can I tell?
( sorry, in a funny mood)
“Islamic Terrorism: The Taboo Topic”
by Uzay Bulut.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5119/islamic-terrorism-taboo
What a load of old cobblers from the IBCB – Islamic Broadcasting Corporation of Britain! Just how much more of this pro-Islamic extremist politically correct crap is the normal British person willing to take from the BBC? I am bloody sick to my back teeth of hearing cringeworthy PC euphemisms such as ‘grooming gangs’ (that’s BBC speak for racist Muslim child-rape gangs), ‘radicals’ ( jihadi fanatics who enjoy beheading), ‘conservatives’ (religious madrasa zealots) and so on. However, if the assailant be white and Christian or Jewish then its ‘right-wing, neo-Nazi, fascist terrorist’. The repulsive BBC and the grovelling PC Left brigade are hopelessly besotted with Muslims and will do anything to please their masters.
I agree with the head of BBC Arabic and it’s funny how we get the same point argued from both ends, claiming it is an example of left wing bias.
Earlier the BBC had decided that Muslim Islamic Jihadist were word not to be used, and that Terrorist was the correct word, to hide the very real connection with the religion of peace.
So lets not call them Terrorists lets call them what they are, Muslims behaving in a way their religion commands, and fighting Jihad in Allahs name.
Hiding the real motivation behind the attacks is the real bias (IMHO).
I don’t come on here often and I don’t usually like your opinionated comments as they’re invariably arrogant, but I will vouchsafe to agree on this case. They are, indeed, religious fanatics hellbent on using violence to achieve their ‘religious’ objectives as opposed to a group that uses terrorism to ‘pursue’ political aims. But it’s semantics and the term ‘terrorist’ has become a type if umbrella term in modern parlance; so it could be viewed as encompassing religious murderers as well as the political.
‘the term ‘terrorist’ has become a type if umbrella term in modern parlance’
You’ve accidentally stumbled across a point there.
Here’s how the US Apache pilots deal with terrorists;
Warning; graphic images of terrorists being dealt with harshly. No animals were harmed whilst making this video.
Didn’t hear many ‘allah u akbar’s’ there. That’s what I call shooting Tex, if Carlsberg did jobs..!!
What we have is a two-pronged defence agenda of Islam by the BBC, probably to further its own hegemonistic desires to be the worlds media outlet, thus needing to ingratiate itself with the Muslim world.
REGARDLESS OF THE INTENT OF THAT WORLD!
As Jihad Watch noted recently the BBC first tries to tell us that jihadists are either misunderstanders of Islam, or are not real Muslims.
Then as we see here, even these ‘misunderstanders of Islam’ must not be given a label that all of us would understand as perfectly fitting. That way behind the scenes the BBC can tell them they are really justified freedom fighters, or poor victims, instead of the PSYCHOPATHS that they really are.
The BBC is the real cancer in our society.
Here’s a perfect contrast to highlight the hypocritical mindset of the BBC.
Bearing in mind that Tim Willcox saw no problem equating the murder of Jews by Muslims for what he sees as the treatment of Palestinians by Israel.
Clint Eastwood has directed a new film, American Sniper, based on the actions of an American war veteran who killed 160 extremists while on duty in Iraq.
Here’s the article from the BBC about this film:
American Sniper film ‘behind rise in anti-Muslim threats’
In which they tell us, and keep this passage in mind:
The ADC said a “majority of the violent threats we have seen over the past few days are result of how Arab and Muslims are depicted in American Sniper”.
Now I haven’t seen this film, but I’m aware, as are most here, of what Muslim extremists have been doing in this part of the world. If Clint Eastwood has portrayed them honestly, and I believe he would have, then ‘savages’ would be an apt description, and they got their just deserts before they could murder others.
Where in this article do you see any justification (a la Willcox) to the ADC, that considering the many terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims they should understand why the film portrays them as they do? Let’s face it – REAL MUSLIMS WERE NOT KILLED TO MAKE THIS POINT LIKE MUSLIMS DID IN FRANCE TO JEWS AND HEBDO STAFF!
But the BBC are all over themselves to be on the side of Islam. Honest Reporting is still trying to get action by them over Willcox’s statements.
Here’s what Breitbart has to say on the matter. Shows clearly just which side the BBC is on in our society.
BBC DESCRIBES TERRORISTS KILLED IN WAR BY CHRIS KYLE AS ‘VICTIMS’
Do not call Charlie Hebdo killers ‘terrorists’,
I agree. Call them with they themselves would like – Mujahideen.
Meanwhile, in FRANCE, as reported by ‘France 24’-
“French town of Lunel under spotlight after terrorism raid.
“French security forces arrested five people in anti-jihadist raids on Tuesday in Lunel, a small town in the south of France, from where at least ten young people have left for Syria.”
http://www.france24.com/en/20150127-france-terrorism-raid-network-jihadist-homegrown-lunel/?
Islamic political agenda:-
“BBC: ‘Paris attacks prompt fresh concerns about online Islamophobia’”
[Opening excerpt, by Robert Spencer]-
“You might have expected “’Paris attacks prompt fresh concerns about jihad terror,’ but that just shows you’re a racist, bigoted Islamophobe.
“The #killallMuslims hashtag is reprehensible and heinous, and has no justification whatsoever. The BBC doesn’t bother to point out, however, that it was non-Muslims who were killed by Muslims in Paris, not the other way around. How many Muslims have been killed in ‘Islamophobic’ hate attacks? None — and that is as it should be. How many non-Muslims have been killed in jihad attacks? Tens of thousands. But the BBC isn’t concerned about them, and doesn’t want you to be, either.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/bbc-paris-attacks-prompt-fresh-concerns-about-online-islamophobia