Were the London Bombers "Terrorists"?

[Pangloss]

What's in a name?

 

The BBC has allegedly ordered its reporters not to use the word "terrorist" when referring to the London bombers. Here in the States, the New York Times does the same with Iraq, calling it an "insurgency" and calling the Al Qaida people there "fighters".

 

The Wikipedia defines terrorism as this: "Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal."

 

The poll question is simply this: Do you feel that the London bombers were "terrorists"?

[In My Memory]

Do you feel that the London bombers were "terrorists"?

Anyone who sets off bombs to kill civilians is a terrorist.

 

 

But I think the BBC's censoring the word "terrorist" - if it has any rationale at all - is to avoid feeding the flames of an anti-Arab witch hunt.

[Bettina]

Yes....Because sometimes a terrorist strikes just to promote terror without having any specific agenda.

 

However, in the case of the british, the terrorists were british citizens but also muslims, and that alone opens the same religious door.

 

Some people just like to kill.

 

Bettina

[Dak]

without knowing their motives, its hard to say.

 

if it was in a "do x or we'll blow more stuff up", then id say yes.

 

but as i said, without knowing their motives...

[Pangloss]

But I think the BBC's censoring the word "terrorist" - if it has any rationale at all - is to avoid feeding the flames of an anti-Arab witch hunt.

 

Could be. But it's worth noting that they're not just talking about gangs of street thugs when they say something like that. The definition of "witch hunt" by many liberal ideologues includes people like Blair and Bush, their legislation, and their police actions. When an organization that claims to be objective refuses to use an appropriate, objectively-accepted definition for political/ideological reasons, then it really doesn't matter what their rationale is.

 

But I don't feel that the BBC or NYT are supporting or justifying terrorists.

[In My Memory]

Pangloss,

 

When an organization that claims to be objective refuses to use an appropriate, objectively-accepted definition for political/ideological reasons, then it really doesn't matter what their rationale is.

I think it may just come down to the fact that the BBC is writing for real people, and real people just dont care about academic definitions.

 

As an example, just take a look at the social connotations that overcame the words socialism and fascism. Academically, these words mean "having to do with the distribution of wealth and opposing vast bureacracies", and "prioritizing the interests of the state rather than the interests of individuals" respectively. Both words have a completely neutral meaning, neither positive nor negative. But, socially, these are dirty words, very dirty words with dirty meanings that are dirty dirty dirty.

 

"Terrorist" is the new dirty word, and due to social stigma it no longer has anything to with violence to achieve ideological goals - now, the word "terrorist" singles out arabs, painting them as criminals. If being academically responsible means inadvertantly fueling racism, perhaps the BBC wants to have nothing to do with.

 

(This is only my speculation )

[donkey]

They were certainly mass murderers and picked their targets accordingly but I'd also say I'm 99% sure that they wanted to cause havoc and terror across London as punishment for our foreign policy. I voted terrorists. I agree that the BBC perhaps simply don't want to incite anti-Muslim / anti-anyone with a dark skin hatred.

 

look at the social connotations that overcame the words socialism

 

these are dirty words' date=' very dirty words with dirty meanings that are dirty dirty dirty.[/quote']

 

now, the word "terrorist" singles out Arabs, painting them as criminals.

I'm going to guess you're not from Europe, or at least not the UK. In the UK a lot of us also associate "terrorist" with the IRA and I guess many Spanish people associate it with ETA too. So not just Arabs. Also, here the bombers were of Pakistani decent - so yes Muslims but not Arabs. I think that's an interesting difference between the UK and the US. We have quite a lot of south Asians living in the UK, many of them Pakistani or from Pakistani parents and a lot of them are Muslims so we tend to be more familiar with Muslims being non-Arabs. I guess countries around the Asia-pacific region, such as Australia, may be more familiar with Indonesians etc. being Muslims and therefore they may associate anyone of far eastern appearance with being a potential "Islamic terrorist".

 

Also, socialism (nor liberal for that matter) doesn't really have the same negative connotations in the UK. Of course it does in certain circles but it's not something you can immediately put someone down with - not with the same power as it seems to have over the American public. Liberal is the strangest one for me. It strikes me as strange that anyone wouldn't want to be called a liberal.

 

liberal

adj.

 

1.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

 

2. Favouring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behaviour of others; broad-minded.

2.

1. Tending to give freely; generous:

a liberal benefactor

.

 

sounds good to me!

[Pangloss]

I think it may just come down to the fact that the BBC is writing for real people, and real people just dont care about academic definitions.

 

Well I appreciate that you're just speculating, but if that's true, then it's a justification for bias. Their job to report the news, not figure out "social connotations". That's a perfect example of trying to use two wrongs to make a right.

 

In other words, what you're saying is that they feel that "real people" are too stupid to figure out that they're being unduly influenced by words like "terrorism", so they're going to try to influence them with other words, chosen specifically for their social context.

 

Here would be the hypothetical proof: I imagine that if you actually asked a BBC official if that were the case, they would deny it. If what you say is true, wouldn't that be something they would stand behind? But they won't -- they'll deny it, because they know that there's a massive logical flaw in that reasoning.

 

 

 

(And yet they wonder why critics call them "elite".)

[Douglas]

What's in a name?

That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

-William Shakespeare

 

 

Do you feel that the London bombers were "terrorists"?

Of course.

[donkey]

Well I certainly think that by any definition this is a clear case of terrorism and the public and the BBC will recognise that - terrorism isn't some complex word with a complex definition.

 

But as a more general point, perhaps, often the real definition of the word is actually what's in common usage, as opposed to what the some dictionary says.

 

edit: oh dear, i have a bad habit of going off on tangents...

[J'Dona]

From what I thought, a terrorist could be defined as someone who commits acts of violence and intimidation on civilians to advance political, religious, or ideological goals. By that definition, the London bombers were terrorists because they killed civilians and attempted to intimidate a society which opposes their values (Al Qaeda's, that is). On the other hand, the Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah, whose targets were military personnel, were not terrorists (unless they did attack civilians).

 

The Wikipedia article defines terrorism as simply "the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal," which I don't think is right at all. By this definition, any soldier who commited violence in war would be a terrorist. Actually, almost anyone who commited a violent crime would be a terrorist. If you hit a man for promoting racism (the end of racism being your ideological goal), you would be committing an act of terrorism.

[Skye]

The way I've been looking at it lately is that war is the use of force to prevent an opposing leadership from exercising military command and control, while terrorism is the use of force to coerce a population into pressuring their leadership into making certain decisions. So war is a top down approach and terrorism is a bottom up approach. There's bound to be grey areas though.

[alibabba]

According to the definition offered in the opening post, the reason for the violence determines whether or not it is terrorism.

 

In as much as the perps have not been caught and interrogated, how could anyone know the reasons for the bombings? Wouldn't it be mere speculation, at this point?

[atinymonkey]

Could be. But it's worth noting that they're not just talking about gangs of street thugs when they say something like that.

Yes. Yes they are. Actual gangs of street thugs.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2890097.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4678837.stm

 

Of course, that could just be in the imagination of liberal reality, with its liberal leanings. Damn liberal facts. It's a liberal agenda to libralise the way we literally liberal. Liberals.

 

Well I appreciate that you're just speculating, but if that's true, then it's a justification for bias[/b']. Their job to report the news, not figure out "social connotations". That's a perfect example of trying to use two wrongs to make a right.

No. As has been said before, the motivations of the bombers has yet to be determined. They can only be referred to as terrorists if the actions fit the specific criteria. The BBC do not want to label incorrectly, as they would receive a backlash from the other media. I presume the statement from the BBC was to help counteract the filtering of the word 'terrorist' which the American media has shoehorned into the public consciousness (the BBC staff included).

 

In other words, what you're saying is that they feel that "real people" are too stupid to figure out that they're being unduly influenced by words like "terrorism", so they're going to try to influence them with other words, chosen specifically for their social context[/i'].

I think you don't really understand the situation. The bombers were from Leeds, which was the subject of large race riots a few years back which were instigated by the Asian community in response to perceived intolerance of the Police towards Asian youths. Incorrectly labeling the youths as terrorists could result in untold ramifications. The BBC, along with the rest of the British, are not suffering knee jerk reactions to this situation and throwing meaningless clichés around to provoke response.

 

Here would be the hypothetical proof: I imagine that if you actually asked a BBC official if that were the case, they would deny[/i'] it.

Would they? The proof of this would be the BBC not reporting the story, I presume?

 

Here is just one of the political broadcasters on the BBC who have been discussing the situation. You can download the shows online: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/vine/

He's got a good show, if you have any time spare to stream it.

 

(And yet they wonder why critics call them "elite".)

Because they are without peer. They are the best. Even considering your never-ending quest to point out minor grammatical foibles in a minority of reporters employed by the worlds largest broadcaster, they are still streets ahead of the competition regarding journalistic integrity.

[Pangloss]

So far 100% of the poll respondants feel they were terrorists.

 

Still, you have some interesting points there, and I appreciate the background input on Leeds.

 

 

One brief correction:

Because they are without peer. They are the best.

 

I was referring to the media in general with that comment, not the BBC specifically. My fault for not being clear.

 

I haven't made up my mind about bias at the BBC yet. That's why I ask questions about it, and I appreciate your input on the subject.

[Dak]

So far 100% of the poll respondants feel they were terrorists.

 

Im not sure on the grounds that i dont know their motives, and unless the motives were political coersion i dont think that they count as terrorists; but i didnt actually vote 'not sure' as im assuming that pretty soon their motives will become clear, at which point ill vote ya or nay.

 

reading the responces, i suspect others may have done the same, so perhaps 100% is a tad incorrect.

 

circulalarly (?) related, i suspect that the reasoning may be a political one: if we're going to come down mercilesly on terrorists, we'd better be dam sure that we are clear on who is and isnt a terrorist, and dont label people as terrorists without good cause.

 

if i were a cynical git, id also say that this approach leaves us the option of continuing to support terrorism (as we have done before) under certain curcumstances, eg if it classifies as 'freedom fighting' or 'insurgency'.

[Pangloss]

Sounds like spin to me. The statement I made was factually indisputable. There is, of course, one (and only one) way you can render it "incorrect". Your interpretation of the poll, on the other hand, is your own, and only your own. I have no evidence that you speak for anyone else.

[Dak]

I said 'a tad' incorrect, not completely invalid.

 

Yes, as you say 100% of the respondants of the poll called them terrorists. I was just trying to point out that, when the 'terrorists' motives become clear, a whole chunka people who may have been refraining from voting might suddenly make up their mind and vote.

 

although id be very surprised if their motives dont turn out to be those of a terrorist.

[Edisonian]

How could they not be terrorists? Yes, they were terrorists.

[Tetrahedrite]

From what I thought' date=' a terrorist could be defined as someone who commits acts of [i']violence and intimidation on civilians[/i] to advance political, religious, or ideological goals. By that definition, the London bombers were terrorists because they killed civilians and attempted to intimidate a society which opposes their values (Al Qaeda's, that is). On the other hand, the Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah, whose targets were military personnel, were not terrorists (unless they did attack civilians).

 

The Wikipedia article defines terrorism as simply "the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal," which I don't think is right at all. By this definition, any soldier who commited violence in war would be a terrorist. Actually, almost anyone who commited a violent crime would be a terrorist. If you hit a man for promoting racism (the end of racism being your ideological goal), you would be committing an act of terrorism.

 

 

 

I agree that that you have to be very careful with the way you use the word terrorist:

 

The Wikipedia defines terrorism as this: "Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal."

 

Anyone who sets off bombs to kill civilians is a terrorist.

 

Both of the initial definitions given by Pangloss and In My Memory could equally applied to the "good guys" throughout the 20th Century. I think that under the first definition the invasion of Iraq could be termed violence for the purpose of achieving a political, ideological and (in my opinion, a religious) goals, and further more, the allies would be considered terrorists using the second definition for bombing the town of Dresden during WW2.

 

(Just a note, I am not suggesting the London bomber's are not terrorists)

[Bettina]

How could they not be terrorists? Yes, they were terrorists.

 

Thanks for the link to "talktheory". I saw some interesting points in the mental powers thread...one from a nurse.

 

Bettina

[YT2095]

you can bet yer a$$ they were, Islamic fundies too, and they`ve been named.

as well as further explosives found in a muslim youth meeting place.

Home Made explosive where found too.

 

now that sort of thing doesn`t happen by "Accident" does it!?, "oh dear, I was backing a cake and look what happened! I think I`ll take it to London".

 

and so now thanks to these `//ankers there`s going to be even MORE things banned from sale off the shelf in chemist shops, spoiling it for the rest of us that just want to get on with our Science and stuff.

 

pity it didn`t go off when they were making it! that would be 4 less and no innocents lost!

[donkey]

The BBC has allegedly[/url'] ordered its reporters not to use the word "terrorist" when referring to the London bombers.

BBC Chairman Michael Grade has said the London bombers were terrorists and should be described as such by BBC News.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4690000/newsid_4696100/4696175.stm

[theTrench]

I believe that this isn't what everyone thinks it is. Isn't it a little convient that when the world starts to hate and despise the US for going into Iraq and killing thousdands of innocent people that another country gets bombed by people who are supposedly from the same ethnical background? I've heard the word Al Quida used when refer to Lond bombing a few times, and it pisses me off. What are the chances that it is the same people who attacked us? I think that it was the US the organized the bombing, hoping to cause some british patriots to turn pro on the Iraqi war. It's all a political game, and the lives of innocent people don't seem to manner. We're all just assets to the higher powers.

[radiohead]

They did that to inflict terror, therefore they are terrorists.