Amoral Equivocation of the Grauniad and the Liberal-left

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by AndyPipkin, Jul 12, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Its unbelievable how the standards of 'journalism' and comment in this comic actually get worse. 'It would be wrong to jump to any conclusions' WTF?! maybe it was the ALF or Baptists, oh no hang on I bet it was the Japs, notorious bastards those.
  2. Incredible isn't it? Guardian readers are the kind of people who make up our government and are strategically placed in most of our public services. Are they just stupid misguided or are they something far more sinister!

    Anyone want to make a bet on the perprtrators of this atrocity?
  3. I particularly liked this comment:


    July 12, 2006 03:35 AM

    Amazing, once again the Guardian proves what a clueless bunch of morons they are when it comes to terrorism in India - 'HINDU' and Muslim terrorists - what exactly was the 'Hindu' terrorism - once again the Guardian takes the biscuit for the English prize of 'equal-equal' - well f@ck you. Do you really think that a multiple terrorist atrocity timed at the same time is some local group? Just because Musharaff, the military dictator of Pakistan, issues some cheap response then Pakistan is not responsible? I'm not surprised really - this is the same paper that employs Isabel Hilton who knew so little about Kashmir that she decided that India somehow invaded region - erm, no, try and read about a place before you open your silly trap. But then they also pay Faisal Bodi, who supported quite openly in the pages of the Guardian the founder of Jaish-e-Muhammad, a terrorist group that hijacked an Indian airplane, murdered a passenger and colluded with the Taliban, Al Queda and the Pakistani intelligence services to free him and also the eventual murderer of Daniel Pearl, Omar Sheikh. But even now the Guardian loves to depict the murderers of innocent Indians as 'militants' - you are truly scum.
  4. Andy!

    What is wrong with this article? Place quote(s) and comment them, please.
  5. Sergey this article is symptomatic of a liberal culture that just can't seem to accept the true nature of the islamic religion. This rag (And the BBC) are truly Orwellian in their capacity for twisting or denying the truth. In their cosy little worlds murdering scum become "Militants" as if they are on a picket line fighting to keep their jobs. Sometimes they are called Insurgents or exteremists but on no account are they ever labelled terrorist.

    I think I despise the liberal elite of this country as much as I hate the killers..... at least you know which side the terrorist is on.
  6. Sergey, how would you describe Shamil Basayev? A 'militant'? A 'guerilla'? An 'activist'? The Graun would use all these terms rather than describe him for what he was, a terrorist.

    How would you describe the Beslan massacre, the Moscow theatre seige, etc? I would call them terrorist atrocities. The Grauniad would probably call them 'asymetric warfare acts'. That's how one of their commentators described 9/11 anyway.
  7. Well, it is a well known question why not to call terrrist as terrorists. I rather agree with a viewpoint that any newspaper should first of all inform readers.

    A militant = armed man - it is rather infromation.
    A trrorist - it is rather an estimate.

    Any reader is free to make own estimates.
  8. He did not like Russian policy :wink:
  9. From my private point of view of course Shamil Basaev (recently sent to the hell) is a terrorist. But is is my estimate, and I have right for my own estimate. As for Guardian and BBC they undeline their position: for some resons they don't use a word terrorist in their news, because their readers have right to make own estimates.

    So (taking it in mind) I don't protest against position of the BBC and Guardian.

    It is much worse to call one terrorists as terrorista and othere terrorists as "fridom fighters".

    For example it is not right to call members of Hezbullah as terrorists. Personally I'm anwarare about even one terror act made by Hezbollah in recent 10 years.
  10. Maybe the leader comes to soon! But Hindu extremism exists in India and if you deny it then you are denying the truth.
  11. Proper little Islamophile ain't we castleriegh? Are you saying that you really think Hindus were responsible for killing Hindu? Or do you think that its down to the usual suspects and usual perpetrators?
  12. I think we should wait until we have some facts before we make judgements.

    I'm no bleeding-heart liberal but I really am struggling with what was wrong with that leader. If someone can quote a specific sentence that maybe I've misinterpreted then I'd be very grateful.
  13. I think the liberal elite of this country are the real enemies of the nation.
    Always panseying about taking on every World event and revolution, but
    seemingly never what suits Britain. :(

    Is it just me or does anyone else find unequivocal condemnation
    wrong and idiotic. I mean politicians are spouse to give leadership but
    quite often end up in slanging matches over which person or party issued
    the first unequivocal condemnation of events.
  14. I think the clue comes at the start of the article.

    True, nothing is proven yet, but given the MO, it's reasonable to assume that the Hindus haven't suddenly started killing each other with train bombs.

    Why is the Guardian the first to piously declare that we shouldn't automatically put Muslims in the frame, when they are doing exactly that with Hindus?