It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Left Wing BBC Refuses to call the London attackers "Terrorists"!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Here is an example of how truely left-wing the BBC is! They have edited out the word "terrorist" or "terrorists" from their London bombing on air storys. Instead they use the term "bombers".

Does anyone else find this odd? Also, is this an attempt to hide the threat of terrorisms from the public, so they can just focus on hating the war on terror???


Shocking!!!!

Link.




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Are you surprised? NPR (America's public radio, N.ational P.ublic R.adio) made this declaration a while ago. We don't want to hurt the feelings of these bombers by calling them something so base as terrorist.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
they do not use the word "terrorist" any more most likely because of that fact that the United States has turned it into a word to mean al-qaeda, etc., etc. rather than just meaning terrorist. they are smart in not assuming or making others think that some al-qaeda oriented group necessarily had anything to do with the attack. after all, there is no real proof as of yet that they had anything to do with 9/11 either. just propoganda...

they are calling the attackers what they know they were. bombers.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
A quote from Carlin: "Why are Israeli terrorist called commandos? Why are Palistinian commandos called terrorists?"

You say potAto, I say potato.

2 cents.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Bomber/Terrorist who cares, when they finally confirm this was a suicide attack then they will be calling them Suicide Bombers(while the Right Wing rags will be calling them Homicide Bombers or some such) Or is a Buzzword really so important to the Right Wing who loves to rule through fear-mongering the world over
I would think that the Brits(not sure if you're one or not) know what they are doing when in these types of situations. They probably(definately) know more about going through this type of stuff then we(us North Americans) do that's for sure(exception being US soldiers in Iraq)



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
A Television station not using the word terrorist makes them 'Left-wing'?
Or the BBS is 'left wing' so they are not allowed to use the word terrorist because it is a 'right wing' word?

I don't understand the logic here.

Are the British going to be at each others throats and have a huge divide like America now?


Would this thread not be better suited for P@ATS?



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Whomever was involved with the bombings are: Killers, bombers, and terrorists.

Killers kill people.
Bombers detonate bombs.
Terrorits terrorize people.

Ten years ago the BBC would have called them terrorsits most likely. I don't doubt the choice of words is politicaly motivated.

"Yeah, these were bombers. Not terrrorists, nope, uh-uh, no way. This wasn't done to terrorize anyone. Nope. Not a chance. Someone's probably angry over a transportation matter."


[edit on 12-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
The BBC and the government are being too politically correct about every thing. They refuse to use the word 'Islamist militantants' and say militants done the bombings when something happens across the globe.

Heard of Tamel Tigers, after the tsunami because they would not accept help from other countries after the flood. Guess what religious group they are? Yes muslims. So why are the BBC leaving this information out, its as if they think people would associate muslims with terrorits and thats wrong all of a sudden. If they are going to tell a story give precise details instead of misinformation.

Now protesters are called anachists.

[edit on 12-7-2005 by The time lord]

[edit on 12-7-2005 by The time lord]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Whomever was involved with the bombings are: Killers, bombers, and terrorists.

Killers kill people.
Bombers detonate bombs.
Terrorits terrorize people.


All killers don't bomb, all terrorists don't bomb. They do other things as well, including recruitment and raising finances. I don't see your logic.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I would prefer to call them "the blasters"...what does that mean?

Terrorist is used way too loosely nowadays. Do we have pictures yet?



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I hadn't noticed until you said, disgusting.. How dare they NOT call them terrorists, what else are they? Ridicolous... no wonder this country has gone the way it has when we can't smack children, women can't carry tasers or CS gas, we can't own guns and terrorists can't be called terrorists.. how stupid can it get.
If ANYONE takes offence at that then the world is a big place, why don't they find somewhere else to live (This isn't a racist remark aimed at any 'groups' as some might jump to the conclusion of, this is to anyone that doesn't like it)....
While I would prefer to avoid heavy handed tactics, being a bunch of PC pansies is not the answer.

The majority of us (including me) would love to live in the perfect world where veryone is happy and nothing bad happens. Sadly we don't and as long as there are wackos out there we NEVER will.

We all have a choice, we can die upholding a wonderful fantasy that will never happen as long as humans are humans, or we can rise up and defeat or hinder the enemy as best we can, even if it does mean sing tactics that we would rather avoid.

the choice, even though none of us want to admit it is simple:

1. Be 'righteous' and a die a loser for a cause that will be long forgotten
2. Be a winner, stand up for what you believe and make a stand, using whatever methods necessary to win the fight that we are in, wherever we like it or not.

What's the point of standing your ground against the bully if he doesn;t want to back down and kicks you to death? Sometimes you have to hit back to protect yourself even though you don't want to and it's not the 'right thing' to do so, but you have little choice.

Please note I DO NOT condone mass killing or discrimination against anyone. I don't think we should 'nuke' anyone in retaliation, the people that commited these atrocities are a minority. We must learn where to draw the line and when to be unpleasant when the time arises.

But if we can't even call a terrorist a terrorist, what chance do we have?



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I would prefer to call them "the blasters"...what does that mean?

Terrorist is used way too loosely nowadays.


Agreed DG, there have been terrorists, even in the West for decades, Bieder Mienhoff, Red Brigade, IRA, even here in Canada the FLQ, but what do you think of today when someone says "terrorist"?




Sad. :shk:



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Oh of course, they didn't terrorise anyone did they? They weren't out to strike fear into anyone , they were all out on a Picnic when it all went wrong. Whoops... Sorry





a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities



Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.



is a label for one who personally is involved in an act of terrorism. Terrorist tactics may also be used by dissident groups or other non-state actors to achieve political ends or for purposes of extortion. The term "terrorism" originated from the French 18th century word terrorisme (under the Terror).



Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal. The targets of terrorist acts can be government officials, military personnel, people serving the interests of governments, or civilians. Acts of terror against military targets tend to blend into a strategy of guerrilla warfare. According to one view, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Random violence against civilians (noncombatants) is the type of action


Not calling them terrorists is PC gone mad, come on and wake up, what are you going to call them next? 'Freedom Fighters?', this is stupid, they are TERRORISTS.

For god's sake please don't tell me we're not calling them terrorists because it might upset some of our 'community' somehow... please don't....

[edit on 12-7-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
[EDIT] - Wow. Guess I'm not alone on this huh? [end edit]
[edit] I mean that I was writing this before seeing the last several posts that say similar things [end edit]

Agreed. By definition anyone who bombs anything that affects anonymous people in the process is a terrorist.

I do not picture any sort of person when I hear "terrorist." I think the word is thrown around too much, but when buses and passenger trains are bombed, it's a no brainer.

I'm sick of the policital correctness that affects reporting. You wind up with buzzwords like "disgruntled employee" when someone shoots up coworkers. Bring back "killer madman" I say.

Maybe off-topic, but ever notice how so-called "pro-war" and "pro-peace" are used? It's sickening. Also, notice that almost all "pro-war" or people angry about terrorsit attacks in general seem to be caucasions? The underlying message of this discrepancy seems to be that minorities, which are believed to be agreeable to all left-wing ideals by the media, aren't behind certain actions to combat those who attacked innocents on US soil. It's the white-males as a generic group that are responsible for everything.

I'm not sure what all of this means, but I'm just as disgusted with unanswered questions by the presidential cabinet as I am with watching a few democratic party black state representatives on C-Span last night up in arms over STAMPS IN MEXICO because it will affect their "children's children.

I just want to raise my hand and remind them that people are dying in military action as they speak about stamps in Mexico. I think foreign stamps are a little down the priority list.

[edit on 12-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

[edit on 12-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Left Wing BBC Refuses to call the London attackers "Terrorists"!

Actually, as mentioned, right after the tragic events that occurred in London, the BBC did in fact have no issue, whatsoever, with calling those bombings the work of "terrorists."

They have simply reverted back to their political correctness approach in using the wording of "bombers."

It fits their continued use of political correctness in describing the insurgency in Iraq, which undoubtedly has foreign terrorists involved. The BBC simply calls them "militants" or "insurgents" or "freedom fighters," without regard to the distinctive difference [ie: methods, tactics, targeting, etc] between them and "terrorists,"......errrrrrr, "bombers".







seekerof

[edit on 12-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Has anybody got any other political correctness language examples lately, its quite weired to all of a sudden change and spin the language so it tones down the story.

Like the examples I gave before:

Protesters / anachists

militants / Muslim militants in Sudan

Tamel Tigers / muslim militants

Anything similar where you are in how broadcast language has become over PC.

[edit on 12-7-2005 by The time lord]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   


they are smart in not assuming or making others think that some al-qaeda oriented group necessarily had anything to do with the attack. after all, there is no real proof as of yet that they had anything to do with 9/11 either. just propoganda...


I take it from this misstatement of facts that you do not follow the news?
Fact: Bin Laden admitted responsiblilty for the 9/11 attack on one of his tapes.
Fact: Bin Laden is the leader of Al-Qaeda.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
The BBC is as left wing as Genghis Khan, and a suicide bomber is a tragic
misguided fool until he or she is formally linked with a registered union of terrorists.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I would call them bombers. The IRA were proper terrorists. These half assed jokers couldnt even do the job properly. The IRA would have killed everyone on the trains too had their been a military target there that they were after.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirrorsparadise
they do not use the word "terrorist" any more most likely because of that fact that the United States has turned it into a word to mean al-qaeda, etc., etc. rather than just meaning terrorist. they are smart in not assuming or making others think that some al-qaeda oriented group necessarily had anything to do with the attack. after all, there is no real proof as of yet that they had anything to do with 9/11 either. just propoganda...

they are calling the attackers what they know they were. bombers.


It might seem that the ones who seem to be spreading the most teoor activities around at this time are the Islamofascists. It isn't a U.S.-created perception; it is merely statistical.

You say they are "bombers"? I'm sorry, I didn't hear of wings, bomb bay doors or engines being strapped to the TERRORISTS, did you?


So, they refuse to call them terrorists? Well, would they at least compromise and call them Tricksters gone horribly amok?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join