Dont be shy of the word terrorist, BBC is told

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by mora, May 5, 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. But when the IRA bombed army barracks, were they not acts of terrorism? Why should British troops not be counted as victims of terrorism simply because they aren't 'civilians'?

    Put it this way: how many people would agee with the slogan "One person's rapist is another person's seducer"?

    Terrorism, which involves the deliberate targeting of civilians with a view to killing and maiming them and if possible in large numbers, is a crime against humanity under international law. It is not, consequently, a partisan matter to refer to terrorists as 'terrorists'.

    There are, in contrast, distinctions often made that ought not to be. What is or is not "terrorism" does not depend on the badness or goodness of the cause, nor on whether those espousing it have the chance to express their demands democratically.
     
  2. The BBC is stuck between a rock and a hard place over this.

    Israel use state sponsored terrorism to enforce their illegal occupation of Palestinian territory and so the Palestinian people are forced to do what countless groups of people have done over the centuries, fight fire with fire in the only way a populous without access to a large military industrial complex (the USA) can, insurgency.

    The BBC is trying not to pick sides. If it calls Palestinian suicide bombers terrorists but not Israeli Apache crews who carry out unguided rocket attacks on urban areas then it is quite clearly picking sides.

    Of course the BBC could always take the moral high ground and defend a democratic but occupied country (surely the best friend of the US) but if it did it'd face the wrath of a world where any views that are anti-Israeli are seen as anti-Semitic.
     
  3. Mora are you in Mossad? You're posts all seem to be very pro Israeli and more than a little chippy about the use of the word terrorism. It has been discussed hundreds of times before, especially in connection with our friends across the water, that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter ( I know it's a cliche, but it simplifies the argument). The label is very subjective, and, as has been proved in previous threads, always open to an argument, is never fully resolved.
     
  4. speaking from experience of terrorism (a victim) i can see the variation in thought.
    The phrase one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist is true but this is very much down to personal experience.

    in the aftermath of the London bombings much play and still is made of the victims by the BBC.

    but in Belfast we were just left to get on with it and "its not in my back yard"springs to mind in relation to victims.

    Every day i see people on the streets who murdered at will and got out early.

    when you reach that stage in Britian then you will understand completely.

    Any conflict has its parallels the syrians are not willing to return the portion of palestine they occupied and i dont hear any shouting about this.
     
  5. to quote after Dennis Donaldson was murdered he was frequently refered to by BBC NI as a British spy murdered.

    The correct term would be man murdered but as usual the PC brigade appears not to have infiltrated this far North just yet.
     
  6. Sorry for the flippancy, Ulsterism. In my cack handed way, I was trying to make a point to mora that his posts are all on a variation of the same theme and that no matter how many times the same question is asked ( terrorism or not), it will never reach universal agreement.
     
  7. hmm what mora is pretty selectinve in his extracts and comments.

    The report also saiud that the word terorist should be used to describe sate or non state acts designed to cause terror.

    He also missed some of the key findings about lack of balance. The partiular short comings seem to be that the BBC doesn ';t puyt enough effort into reporting the Palestinian view.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4964702.stm

    I.e. the BBC has tended to offer, unconsciously too much emphais on the Israeli experience and not enough on the Palestin ian one.
    I wonder why somone so informed should only mention the recommendation that the word terrorist is used when the aim appears to be to terrorise?
     
  8. What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think? uh, here's the site in question: Middle East conflict
     
  9. For too long we have fallen into the trap of copying the Americans in seeing the Isrealis as some kind of special case. The same international law should apply to them as it does to everyone else.
     
  10. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    Of course there is another distinction, many of the Iraqi 'insurgents' who are fighting the CF are freedom fighters. Not many I agree, most are criminals, foriegn mercenaries and religious nut jobs. But some, like the Fedayeen are Freedom Fighters.. Or am I hopelessly out of date?
     
  11. Not bad reply speed there Trigger

    Only 648 days between posts.

    I think Pteranadon has moved on a bit.
     
  12. I'd say the aims are more important than the methods in defining terrorism. If you're bombing the local markets in your efforts to install a secular democracy you're engaged in freedom fighting. If you're fighting like gentlemen in your efforts to install a theocracy you're engaged in terrorism.

    Trouble is almost all the unpleasantness going on is always a mixture of the two.
     
  13. oldbaldy

    oldbaldy LE Moderator Good Egg (charities)
    1. Battlefield Tours

    Sun got to you?
     
  14. I'd have to strongly disagree and say that bombing local markets makes you a class A bastard and a terrorist. It doesn't mater what cause you're fighting for or who you're fighting against, if you go after civillian targets then you're a terrorist.

    This is generally why I don't like the Palestinian terrorist groups. You go after army patrols or military bases then fine, they're made up of blokes with machine guns that are expecting it and can fight back. Blowing up scores of teenagers in discos in central Tel Aviv or targeting civillians in general is just barbaric.
     
  15. Seems to me is a question of what is targeted. If you go after soft targets (pubs, populated shopping centres, markets etc.) and give no warning - that is terrorism, no matter your aims.

    If you go after hard targets, that is a somewhat shadier area.

    As to Israel - this will always be a special case in US - due to 1) the huge and powerful influence of the Zionist (not Jewish) lobby AIPAC, and 2) the backing of Christian fundies.