Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A few days ago, the Labour-supporting Harry's Place blog picked up the BBC deviating from their usual policy of calling terrorists anything but terrorists. However, this was changed later on.

    What would you prefer the perpetrators of the London incident to be called?

    Any other comments are welcome..
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Bombers, most literal, I guess.
    Though to be honest I can't say I particularly care.

    Strangely, and wrongly perhaps, the word 'terrorist' leads me to think middle-eastern, the word 'militant' south american or western. I guess 'bomber' is more neutral to me then.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As for my take: I really don't think the BBC should continue along the stance presumably adopted out of political correctness (so they don't offend some viewers, terrorists are victims too, etc.) or even apology for terror (downplaying and excusing).
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by JonD)
    As for my take: I really don't think the BBC should continue along the stance presumably adopted out of political correctness (so they don't offend some viewers, terrorists are victims too, etc.) or even apology for terror (downplaying and excusing).
    Nothing is ever as simplistic as it first appears.

    The BBC is acknowledging this by their neutral stance.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Nothing is ever as simplistic as it first appears.

    The BBC is acknowledging this by their neutral stance.
    Well, since you have decided that they are "Freedom Fighters", perhaps you would like to enlighten us with this less-simplisitic knowledge you have gained from somewhere.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Obviously someone at Bush House sent down the word to stop using the dreaded t-word.
    I think that's a bit presumptive. Calling them 'bombers' just seems to be being more specific to me, rather than signifying any particular opinion. It's hardly like the word 'bomber' has particularly good connotations.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by JonD)
    Well, since you have decided that they are "Freedom Fighters", perhaps you would like to enlighten us with this less-simplisitic knowledge you have gained from somewhere.
    Well...as some posters will know from my previous posts, I have lived in quite a few countries apart from this one.

    This experience has given me a much wider empathy and understanding than those who are limited in the same way by living in this country alone.

    We are as understanding as our personal experiences allow us to be. I would challenge you to disagree that those who consider they have a 'cause' have no grounds for pursuing their inalienable right to self-determination - in the same way that we, in this country have done in the past.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    We are as understanding as our personal experiences allow us to be. I would challenge you to disagree that those who consider they have a 'cause' have no grounds for pursuing their inalienable right to self-determination - in the same way that we, in this country have done in the past.
    By targetting innocent civilians, right?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I think that's a bit presumptive. Calling them 'bombers' just seems to be being more specific to me, rather than signifying any particular opinion. It's hardly like the word 'bomber' has particularly good connotations.
    Well, assuming they are/were Al-Qeida, it can be argued that they are all four:

    1) They fight for Muslim lands free of Western interference/influence (cultural, economic and military)
    2) They are trained, they are armed, they fight a war
    3) They used bombs
    4) They are members of a terrorist organisation, and commit acts internationally-recognised as terrorist

    Surely if they detonated those bombs at the bottom of the sea, nobody would notice or care. It's the terrorism that has the worlds notice, shouldn't the terrorist label be used? These militans dropped their bombs in order to commit their terrorism also had to use public transport, would "commuter" be a good description, too?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    Well, assuming they are/were Al-Qeida, it can be argued that they are all four:

    1) They fight for Muslim lands free of Western interference/influence (cultural, economic and military)
    2) They are trained, they are armed, they fight a war
    3) They used bombs
    4) They are members of a terrorist organisation, and commit acts internationally-recognised as terrorist

    Surely if they detonated those bombs at the bottom of the sea, nobody would notice or care. It's the terrorism that has the worlds notice, shouldn't the terrorist label be used? These militans dropped their bombs in order to commit their terrorism also had to use public transport, would "commuter" be a good description, too?
    But the point is that these attacks were done using bombs; hence 'bombers' is an appropriate word to use in this case. I by no means view the use of the words 'bombers' or 'bomber' to be remotely coloured by opinion, and I don't think I'm that different from the majority of other BBC readers.

    So to sum up, I don't think it's a big deal, or even a deal at all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Well...as some posters will know from my previous posts, I have lived in quite a few countries apart from this one.

    This experience has given me a much wider empathy and understanding than those who are limited in the same way by living in this country alone.

    We are as understanding as our personal experiences allow us to be. I would challenge you to disagree that those who consider they have a 'cause' have no grounds for pursuing their inalienable right to self-determination - in the same way that we, in this country have done in the past.
    Your little tales of adventure don't exactly answer my question. You hinted that the BBC (or myself) does not know enough about these people to classify them yet you made the judgement and classed them as "freedom fighters". What do you know that justifies the stance to not consider them terrorists?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    By targetting innocent civilians, right?
    It's a fact that innocent civilians die in any conflict - whether deliberate or not. That fact does not make it any the less sadder.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by JonD)
    Your little tales of adventure don't exactly answer my question. You hinted that the BBC (or myself) does not know enough about these people to classify them yet you made the judgement and classed them as "freedom fighters". What do you know that justifies the stance to not consider them terrorists?
    I tell no tales of 'adventure' - just experiences that made me realise than one person's viewpoint does not give greater credence to their cause than another's.

    This alone illustrates than 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    It's a fact that innocent civilians die in any conflict - whether deliberate or not. That fact does not make it any the less sadder.
    And you see no difference between the deliberate killing of civilians and the accidental killing of civilians?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And you see no difference between the deliberate killing of civilians and the accidental killing of civilians?
    I see no difference between the known consequences of 'armed conflict'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And you see no difference between the deliberate killing of civilians and the accidental killing of civilians?
    Do you think it makes a difference to the family and friends of the deceased?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I see no difference between the known consequences of 'armed conflict'.
    Moral relativism at its best. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Do you think it makes a difference to the family and friends of the deceased?
    Would you care if your family was hurt in a car accident or in a terrorist attack?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Would you care if your family was hurt in a car accident or in a terrorist attack?
    Hurt or killed? My question was 'killed', hence 'deceased'.

    I'm just not sure that an Iraqi woman who lost her son in an airstrike would feel much better than a British woman who lost her son on Thursday.

    That isn't a commentary on how justifiable either of the two deaths are comparitively speaking, just something to think about.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Moral relativism at its best. :rolleyes:
    No - not at all.

    We have to remember what has gone before to realise that governments and non-governments know exactly what the ramifications of armed conflict result in.

    Take for instance the bombing of Dresden in the second world war. The British government took a deliberately considered action to bomb the city knowing that many thousands of civilians would be killed as a result of that bombing. Their 'warped' justification was that it would bring Germany to their knees and make victory more simple because the German people would be mourning the loss of so many of their people.

    Is that any less abhorrent than what those you consider to be terrorists are doing?
 
 
 

1,021

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.