BBC edits out the word terrorist

See, if you had said "A Bomber is a Bomber, whether..." then I'd agree with you, but a person who qualifies as a terrorist isn't necessarily the same thing as another terrorist. Think of the different motivations and goals of a Muslim terrorist and, say, a Christian terrorist who thinks it's his duty to bomb abortion clinics - they are very much different creatures. But they are both bombers, regardless of their goals or motivations.


See, I can be just as anal as the Beeb

 

Muslims, apparently.

 

You must've missed that whole part in the new testament when Jesus talked about turning the other cheek.

 

And you must've missed the part in the new testament where it's OK to kill someone if you really really really disagree with them (or want their natural resources).

 

I suspect this but am still hoping for him to come up with something else.

 

A terrorist incites terror, whether the terror is meant to further a political, social, or religious view/belief, doesn't change who/what they are.

 

Hold your breath.

Go ahead.

 

Thanks. I agree. I guess that's what I'm getting hung up. I commend them for making an effort to avoid making conclusions. It's just that I feel like they had a rectangle with 4 equal sides, called it a square, and then retracted that and said it's a rectangle. I'm not getting how the BBC sees terrorist as being an assumption. The only way I can think of the act as not being terroristic is if it was carried out by another country. That is, an agent of the French government planted the bomb. Then it would be an act of war or something, right? And I thought of the Unabomber but really, what he did was a type of terrorism, right? It's not that he wasn't a terrorist. What about teh fine points of these words am I missing?

 

The reason the BBC doesn't use the word terrorist to describe these people is because the word itself, rightly or wrongly, HAS become devalued.

Many people in the UK don't see much difference in terms of morality between terrorists and the actions of some governments our governments have supported, i.e. Pinochet's Chile, the Shah's Iran, etc,. Both types of organisation have used the indiscriminate use of violence against unarmed civilians to further a political aim. Our governments are currently supporting regimes which are denying basic rights to their people and are doing this because they consider our long term interests are better served by doing so.

So, when people in the UK are told that some people in those regimes are carrying out attacks on their 'instruments of oppression', (to 'lapse into the knack' for a bit), i.e. troops, police, whatever, they say, 'Well, that's not the way to go about it but it's understandable'. Result:- 'Good' terrorism.

When they're told that someone has carried out an attack on civilians who have absolutely no connection to those able to influence the major decisions, going about their daily lives in a society where people can largely come and go as they please, can worship as they please and, ultimately, can get rid of their government if they please, they say 'That's out of order'. Result:- 'Bad' terrorism.

Therefore the 'terrorism' bit is irrelevant and can reasonably be removed from the description.

In any case, as Matt has said, the BBC is duty bound to try and tell us what's happening without using words that are simply pejorative. In the present climate the word terrorist probably qualifies.

 

You really are the most hapless moron to ever stumble into the Politics forum. And I say that in full knowledge of the spirit of detente that appears to be breaking out elsewhere between people with brains and their lesser-cerebrumed fellow humans on the right.

 

"Strict Definition" WTF does that mean?

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological, religous or political reasons.