Article

2005-07-12 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2005-07-12 00:38|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 A BBC spokesman said last night: "The word terrorist is not banned from the BBC."

"Why just last week we used it in a story about the Israelis..."

Posted by Pappy 2005-07-12 00:52|| 2005-07-12 00:52|| Front Page Top

#2 Do what I would do given the chance use phyical violence on any and all BBC employess. They don't get it. Islamo-fascism is not equal to or part of western civilization. Terrorists are terrorists, killers are killers, no excuses you bloody handed wankers.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-07-12 01:25|| 2005-07-12 01:25|| Front Page Top

#3 So if (when?) Broadcasting House is attacked, how will the survivors at al-Beeb characterize the event?

Posted by Classical_Liberal 2005-07-12 01:44|| 2005-07-12 01:44|| Front Page Top

#4 The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".

One would think the vicious slaughter of scores of innocent people-- and the wounding and maiming of hundreds-- by Muslim fanatics whose stated ambition is taking over our society and ruling us with shariah would be something about which anyone with a functioning brain could easily make a "value judgement": it's terrorism; it's murder; it's an act of unmitigated, absolute, pure evil.

This is cowardice. It is moral anesthesia and ethical abdication, and if we do not root it out we will never be able to defend ourselves against the evil of totalitarian Islam.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-07-12 05:53|| 2005-07-12 05:53|| Front Page Top

#5 Isn't continued funding of tbe Beeb a 'value judgement'? Certainly don't want to make one now do we?

Posted by Unavinter Sloluque7110 2005-07-12 07:59|| 2005-07-12 07:59|| Front Page Top

#6 accused him of political correctness? Give me an F'n break!!

We are we going to take bit closer look at the BBC? CNN was forced to admit they looked the other way in Baghdad - Jordan did it right after the fall of Baghdad, cause he knew one the files were opened, CNN would be exposed.

Has anyone ever looked at the bank accounts of BBC high ups, or who figured out who is paying the sexy beautiful women to tell the bureau chiefs they are hot? This has gone so far beyond political correctness. This is blatant propaganda. We need to start asking what the people at the BBC are getting in return and making it public knowledge.

Posted by 2b 2005-07-12 08:13|| 2005-07-12 08:13|| Front Page Top

#7 This is cowardice. It is moral anesthesia and ethical abdication, and if we do not root it out we will never be able to defend ourselves against the evil of totalitarian Islam.

That's it in a nutshell, Dave D. This is a war in which the home front morale, which is constantly being undermined by the MSM, is the most vulnerable point of our defense. And instead of trying to help plug the dike, the BBC et al are having at it with jackhammers and bulldozers.

Via Wretchard:

"the father of an Afghan Special Forces soldier wrote privately to say:

Mr. Bin Laden did not miscalculate, not if his calculation was based on things other than the professionalism of the US combat soldier. Neither the west's elected officials nor many of its citizens may be counted on to hold when all about them is falling apart. However, the US - and for that matter Australian - combat soldier is another matter entirely. During a phone conversation this weekend, my son noted a Navy SEAL has never surrendered. It will reassure him that such is still the case.

There was, in this deeply moving private email, the unstated fear that national leadership might not keep the faith -- or as Michael Ledeen suggests -- be imprisoned by myopia -- the tyranny of the soundbite, the goad of the public fixation du jour. The Jihad after all, does not seem similarly vulnerable to the vacillations of their leadership. Even if Osama Bin Laden were arrested today or were he to convert to evangelical Christianity the Jihad would be unlikely to die down. He could not "sell out" his cause in the same sense that Spain's Prime Minister Zapatero could."

And there you have it. All the bravery and sacrafice on the battlefront will count for nothing if the soldiers are undercut by a lethal combination of enemy-sympathist MSM coupled with clueless and/or spineless leadership.

Posted by docob 2005-07-12 08:30|| 2005-07-12 08:30|| Front Page Top

#8 I suppose I could call the BBC a bunch of shitheads, but I don't want to get into value judgements...

Posted by tu3031 2005-07-12 08:30|| 2005-07-12 08:30|| Front Page Top

#9 So the BBC does not think they are terrorists - they must think that the innocent people who were deliberately targetted and murdered weren't 'innocent' but somehow responsible....

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-07-12 09:05|| 2005-07-12 09:05|| Front Page Top

#10 How does the behavior of the BBC differ from Muslim spokesmen who equivocate on the definitions of "terrorism" and "civilian"?

How does the British public's tolerance towards the BBC's behavior differ from the Muslim public's tolerance of those spokesmen?

Who is the BBC really working for?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-07-12 10:35|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-07-12 10:35|| Front Page Top

#11 K I S S

Look at the London Stuff on Sky News....

Where terror and terrorist still exist in the lexicon..

"All four suspected bombers died during the London terror attacks, according to police sources."

"Hours later, police evacuated Luton railway station and car park to recover a vehicle suspected of being linked with the terrorist attacks."

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13385127,00.html

Posted by BigEd 2005-07-12 11:54|| 2005-07-12 11:54|| Front Page Top

#12 Note - they do use "bombers", but in a way that is more gramatically not PC sound...

The article is imperfect, but better than the BBC...

Bombers is what they are, and terror is what they did...

Posted by BigEd 2005-07-12 11:56|| 2005-07-12 11:56|| Front Page Top

#13 A blog of note :
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Posted by anonymous5089 2005-07-12 13:50|| 2005-07-12 13:50|| Front Page Top

#14 interesting that the concept of "terrorist" even occured to the writer, originally, in this report. It would never have dawned on that same bbc writer, if s/he were describing pali bombings of Israelis. In that case, it's "militants".....or, more despicably, "freedom fighters."

Posted by PlanetDan">PlanetDan 2005-07-12 21:43|| 2005-07-12 21:43|| Front Page Top

13:12 play poker
23:58 Super Hose
23:55 Sherry
23:52 Frank G
23:45 Super Hose
23:41 Atomic Conspiracy
23:36 Phil Fraering
23:33 Super Hose
23:32 anymouse
23:29 Super Hose
23:28 anymouse
23:26 trailing wife
23:25 Old Patriot
23:24 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
23:22 Super Hose
23:21 trailing wife
23:19 Mike Kozlowski
23:16 Super Hose
23:14 Phil Fraering
23:09 Barbara Skolaut
23:07 Super Hose
23:00 ed
23:00 whitecollar redneck
22:59 Super Hose