Was the allegation made in the original article false or not?

Did reporters say "terrorist" and then decide to use bomber? I don't have an opinion on that. I don't live in England.

Unfortunately I have a degree in English and I was cursed way before that, believe me.

BUT...I don't care about any PR statement from the BBC or anyone else. I've read their "policy" and it is double talk. It says caution must be used (of course) but says nothing about when "terrorist" is OK to be used. Isn't that important to the original topic of this thread? Yeah, I know it said the word was banned. I don't think it ever was. BUT...

"Act of terror" but yet not committed by a "terrorist"? Completely illogical. "Arson" but yet not committed by an "arsonist"? Same thing right?

OK, it's not banned. "Terrorist" is being used now anyway. OK.

But WHEN does a "bomber" graduate to "terrorist"? Do a certain amount of people need to die or suffer? Who makes that call? If it is important enough to warrant a statement by the BBC, it shouldn't be that difficult to explain.

Is there a BBC statement on that? Is it clear in their policy?

Seriously. Any interest I have in this topic, like most here probably not much because what happened unfortunately happened and that's what I care about: Bombs were detonated and people died and the others mourn. The insanity continues. What does it all mean...

[Edited for spelling]


[edit on 15-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

Come on BoatPhone are you try to defends what so ever the US millitary and British Millitary are doing in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN.Who are you anyway it seem like you are not one of us.We are here because we dont want any mishap,mistake or what so ever or who so ever goverment doing into what they like. We here in this board want everything run smooth in our life and our living that what we are.Everything or any goverment doing too.we all want to know of what they are doing,we are the tax payers

Here is the logic and Proof;

1.Do you think all the mother and their children are brave enuff to hear the sounds of all the droping bomb in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN.
2.How do feel when there is a thousand dead body lying everywhere aftermath in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN.
3.There is no water or the electric current it just came up only after so many months.
4.Food and water suppy are dropping no body want to sell anything it is because they are afraids.
5.Bandits are everyhwere they doing what they want and like.
6.Young girl and woman being raped every where in this both country.

I m replying this because your are eyes and your ear are black out there is no light in your sense

this is to reply in what you are saying few moment ago

Originally posted by The time lord
One way of talking to people you do not know is saying, sorry you have made a mistake about something and would like to help correct this situation rather than judging the writter, its not difficult. Mistakes happen.

The reason why I thought Tamil Tigers were muslim was because of somewhere I read about it and must have confused the two due to the conflicts. They are more Hindu orientated and if I remember now it had something to do with them not accepting aid from the tsunami relief effort because of their religion. I could have been thinking of something else though.

Even if that is wrong that does not mean everything else is wrong. Thank you for pointing it out but no need to sound angry.

I do a lot of reading and research thank you, please do not create a knee jerk reaction on a person who made a slight mistake, I remember the story now, I heard twice on the news, heard it fist time and asked who were the Tamil Tigers and watched it again and forgot, then I read about it and got all confused due to reading too much about everything. What's the big deal?

I probably not know more than a thousand journalists but I probably read over a 1000 articles about everthing else.

But thanks for being nice as to pointing it out.


[edit on 14-7-2005 by The time lord]

OK apologise for being spikey but did find this Beeb bashing a bit tedious. There's an anti-BBC agenda persued mercilessly by News Intenational & their rags for their own purposes. It's not leftie BBC it's called being cautious and looking at the big picture - 54 dead, we don't need any more.

As it obviously was a government agency that was behind the bombing, the term 'terrorist' seems inappropriate. Therefor, 'bomber' does seem more suitable.

Originally posted by Boatphone

Originally posted by eazy_mas
I think it because terrorist is an opion of others.

Isrial is terrotist when the kill Palestine

Amercain is terrorist when the bombing Iraq and killing people in Afghan.

Britian is terrorist because they helped US in terroising Iraq.

So if terroist is an opion .

Inncorrect, a terrorist uses fear to terrorize people by way of violence. The United State of America does not. We fight terrorism.

In Iraq is there been produced in fear and terror so in other words US put the terror in Iraq its a terrorist

unholy,

I just like the truth buddy, and the truth is we are at war with terrorism.

And we are going to win, AND make Iraq and Afganistan great peaceful places.

Boat.

and me here buddy support SHEIKH OSAMA and all LE RESISTANCED BOMBERS the the truth is if win on ur side then a lot of a people will never sleep at midnite and working hour will will show a death signs buddy thank you

In a war there these days there isnt winning or losing just couple of dead bodys.

It depends what is meant by winning or losing.

Originally posted by unholy enterprise
and me here buddy support SHEIKH OSAMA and all LE RESISTANCED BOMBERS the the truth is if win on ur side then a lot of a people will never sleep at midnite and working hour will will show a death signs buddy thank you

Thanks for that: a constructive and erudite addition to the debate!

Does your carer know you're playing with the keyboard???!??

Onanist!!

[edit on 18/7/05 by CTID56092]

unholy:

Who are you and where do you come from?

I don't know or care if you believe half the stuff you write, but I TOTALLY like the way you say it.

Keep on truckin'.

(well, maybe that is something you should stay away from...)

Recently the BBC have used the word terrorists quite a lot, it also depends on the writers you can not accuse the whole of the BBC of being one sided to every thing, each journalist writes their wording slightly different at times and maybe during the first few hours they had to stay open to the developing story which probably got rewritten with the same terms.

Sometimes you have to step back and think its what they saying is right? If we did not then we are just sheep about information. Even the news can be wrong and often they apolagise for getting a story wrong as the papers do.

Was brasseye banned or something? The programme had guts with some of the things it showed. Was it on C4?

I was talking about Private Eye, not Brasseye. But no, it wasn't banned - Chris Morris just stopped doing it. You can buy the DVD of the series, and I would recommend you do, as it's really very funny.

Originally posted by Boatphone

Originally posted by eazy_mas
I think it because terrorist is an opion of others.

Isrial is terrotist when the kill Palestine

Amercain is terrorist when the bombing Iraq and killing people in Afghan.

Britian is terrorist because they helped US in terroising Iraq.

So if terroist is an opion .

Inncorrect, a terrorist uses fear to terrorize people by way of violence. The United State of America does not. We fight terrorism.

By arming small countries and then imposing sanctions when it suits you and then killing civilians in the name of The War on Terror. Pah.

Originally posted by Boatphone
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!!!!

Have you hear of the word "unbiased" ?

You'll probably need to look that one up if you're in the US.. and you'll probably come up with "unpatriotic"

No you see the BBC prides iteslf in its reporting and the term "terrorist" implies someone who uses force illeagally (ie someone who isnt American or Isreali coz then its called counterinsurgency).


No the better term for these people is indeed "bomber" for that is what they did.. bomb something.


See we could start calling the RAF (Royal airforce not the Rote Armee Fraktion ) terrorists for their bombing of dresden (easlily way worse that all terror attcks put together btw) but we chooses to call them bombers as well...



Its exactly in this field of jingoisms and terminology that the battle for the minds of the pople is being won.. terrorist is the new word for communist get it?





[edit on 26/7/2005 by Corinthas]

Boatphone stop being a lame partisan hack, not everything wrong with the world is a left-wing conspiracy.

BBC being sensitive with the word terrorism, I can understand it because terrorism can just become used in any sort of situation these days (. I dont really have a problem with FOX using the word terrorists or anyone and I dont really think that BBC not joining the choir and saying terrorist all the time really matters at all.

Does anyone really think that this matters?? while the politicians are up on capitol hill milking the system, getting free paid trips, passing legislation that is pro-rich and anti workers, smearing CIA agents and giving government agencies even more powers in the name of security Boatphone wants to talk about BBC not using his favourite word.

No wonder why we're screwed in the west.

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 26-7-2005 by drfunk]

Originally posted by Boatphone

Inncorrect, a terrorist uses fear to terrorize people by way of violence. The United State of America does not. We fight terrorism.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!



You really believe that dont you?!?!?

Well atleast the US propaganda department is working efficiantly then



So why oh why was Reagan told his actions in Nicaragua were "illegal use of force" (the "real" word for terrorism btw) by the world court?

And why did the US respond to that accusation by stepping up the activity, and telling their proxy terror troops there to start on "soft targets"?


Can you explain that or am i just "anti-american"?



[edit on 26/7/2005 by Corinthas]

Originally posted by sardion2000
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)

The ones who "fear-monger" are the left wingers. An example: They make black people afraid of the whites, saying that whites will always persecute them and that they should "fight back" against the "oppression". Have you noticed how Jesse Jackson's "Rainbow Coalation" has a single color?

[edit on 8-9-2005 by chitoryu12]

They probably don't use the word terrorist because that particular word has been used in excess as propaganda in the US. The word terrorist, in most American's eyes, no longer means "one who terrorizes", but instead means Islamic extremists.

/close thread.
/quit whining.