Douglas Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 [b']BBC Chairman Michael Grade has said the London bombers were terrorists and should be described as such by BBC News.[/b] Was this after he received 10,000 angry e-mails?
Dak Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 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. what, after we'd had the war and after we'd finished complaining loudly about it. still, i suppose bush was in the area, and i doubt that anyone searched him have they actually established which group was responcable yet?
Pangloss Posted July 22, 2005 Author Posted July 22, 2005 Thanks for the update. FWIW, I hope I wasn't too judgemental in this thread. I admit to my strong lean towards a presumption of bias in the media, but I do try to keep an open mind.
atinymonkey Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 Was this after he received 10,000 angry e-mails? No. Read the link before making weird knee jerk comments:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4690000/newsid_4696100/4696175.stm
theTrench Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 still' date=' i suppose bush [i']was[/i] in the area, and i doubt that anyone searched him have they actually established which group was responcable yet? who'd search the president of the united states of america? He has never done anything wrong I don't kow if they said for sure yet, but I still have heard Al Quida quite a bit.
Douglas Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 No. Read the link before making weird knee jerk comments:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4690000/newsid_4696100/4696175.stm Read the link before making weird knee jerk comments. http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/12/nbbc12.xml
Ophiolite Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 I have voted ''I'm not sure". This seems to me the only viable vote at this stage. We do not know the precise motivations of the group who carried out the bombings. The two broad motives would be a) Revenge/punishment b) Promote a political change If their motives are b) they are terrorists, if a) they are thugs.
atinymonkey Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 Read the link before making weird knee jerk comments.http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/12/nbbc12.xml That makes no sense. Nowhere does it mention anything about the BBC acting upon email complaints.
Callipygous Posted July 25, 2005 Posted July 25, 2005 i dont like that definition of terrorism much... i would define terrorism as any act of war that is designed to incite fear as opposed to achieving a military goal. bombing the subway isnt going to help this group take over england. it was just meant to incite fear in the people and send a message. i say its terrorism.
Ophiolite Posted July 25, 2005 Posted July 25, 2005 By your own definition - "any act of war " - this cannot be terrorism, since no state of war exists with the terrorists.
Callipygous Posted July 25, 2005 Posted July 25, 2005 By your own definition - "any act of war " - this cannot be terrorism, since no state of war exists with the terrorists. sigh.... god bless symantics. will changing that to "act of violence" remove such problems?
Dave Posted July 25, 2005 Posted July 25, 2005 Arguably, many petty criminals incite fear into people by, say, repeatedly throwing bricks and soforth through the windows of people's houses. I'd say that this fits your description - acts of violence designed to incite fear - but I'd hardly call those sort of people terrorists.
Callipygous Posted July 25, 2005 Posted July 25, 2005 fine... i really dont care all that much. the point is i think the definition of TERRORism should include something about tactics specifically designed to incite fear as opposed to achieving some military goal.
Dave Posted July 25, 2005 Posted July 25, 2005 Personally I would say that a lot of these attacks are designed not only to incite fear, but encourage the political parties to do certain things. A good example is the Madrid bombings, which caused Spain to pull out of Iraq.
Ophiolite Posted July 25, 2005 Posted July 25, 2005 sigh.... god bless symantics. will changing that to "act of violence" remove such problems? No. For the reasons Dave has pointed out. Also, it seems rather petty to express exasperation at the application of semantics in relation to a definition. In other circumstances I might have let it pass. Do you actually feel that sloppy usage, especially in a definition, is acceptable. I find it difficult to believe that is so.
Callipygous Posted July 25, 2005 Posted July 25, 2005 No. For the reasons Dave has pointed out. Also' date=' it seems rather petty to express exasperation at the application of semantics in relation to a definition. In other circumstances I might have let it pass. Do you actually feel that sloppy usage, especially in a definition, is acceptable. I find it difficult to believe that is so.[/quote'] when it adequately conveys the meaning, absolutely. i dont care if it looks like a monkey pounded out your message as long as i can read it without too much trouble. by the same token i dont care if we are technically declared "at war" with the terrorists.
Ophiolite Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Right. I'll keep that in mind when reading your posts in future. For the record sloppy definitions are never acceptable in my book. If you ever catch me making or supporting one please let fly with both barrels. Sloppy definitions and science are simply incompatible. (I know this is the politics section, but it's still part of Science Forums.)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now