web analytics

Don’t Miss an Update! -Subscribe:

Follow AforFaith on Twitter

Categories

vineyard-roll.gif

Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Malware Free Guarantee

SiteLock

Join Our Facebook Network

Visitor Map

Locations of visitors to this page

-BBC Example: Eliminating Terrorism by Defining it Out of Existence

by Dr. D ~ June 5th, 2015

Terrorism   Terrorists

I have noticed that the main stream media in America seldom calls anything ‘terrorism’ or refers to individuals as ‘terrorists’ anymore. Then today I run across an article about a new policy by the BBC which eliminates ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorists’ by merely defining them out of existence.

The most popular excuse given for eliminating the terms is that “one person’s “terrorist” might be another’s “freedom fighter.” Here’s the policy defined and explained by a BBC editor given during the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks and killings in Paris:

The Islamists who committed the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris should be not be described as “terrorists” by the BBC, a senior executive at the corporation has said.

Tarik Kafala, the head of BBC Arabic… said the term “terrorist” was too “loaded” to describe the actions of the men who killed 12 people in the attack on the French satirical magazine.  …

“We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist. What we try to do is to say that ‘two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine’. That’s enough, we know what that means and what it is.”

…“Terrorism is such a loaded word. The UN has been struggling for more than a decade to define the word and they can’t. It is very difficult to.

Thanks to Daniel Pipes for enlightening us about this new policy. In response, he has given up using the words himself believing that it is counter productive to continue to battle over use of the terminology.

Response: This is an example of the old policy of seeking ‘impartiality’ in the news  taken to an absurd conclusion. It also follows closely the Obama administration’s playbook to only call terrorists ‘criminals’ or murderers and to downplay or completely ignore any possible connection to Islam or the obvious religious motivations of the perpetrators.

The undercurrent behind these policies is an overriding concern that Islam and Muslims in general will get blamed for all of violence and a concern for the supposedly growing threat of so-called ‘Islamophobia’ in America and the West.

Regardless of whether the BBC or the MSM want to identify the violent actions of Islamists as ‘terror’ or not doesn’t really change a thing. Actions which are calculated to terrorize people for whatever reason or reasons are terrorism regardless of what you may want to call it.

In the past, no one had any trouble identifying violent Irish bombers as terrorists. Some may have considered them to be heroes and revolutionaries but the terrorist title stuck to them none the less. Plus no one was upset or confused when a Timothy McVeigh was called a ‘terrorist or an abortion clinic bomber for that matter. Neither did the press ever back away from identifying violent actions by the KKK as ‘terrorism.’

This has only come up as an issue since most terrorist actions lately have been connected to Islam in some way or another. Obviously there are powerful political and economic factions which are trying to protect Islam from bad PR and from being blamed as the source for it all. It definitely runs counter to the carefully crafted PC identity projected for Islam as the ‘Religion of Peace.’

The thing about this policy that really bothers me the most is the disingenuous concerted effort by the press and political officials to disassociate the violent actions of Muslims from the very religious roots and motivations that they freely cite and admit. Identifying Islamist perpetrators as nothing more individual ‘criminals’ falsely separates them from all of the others with similar objectives. Fact is, whether our leaders or the media want to admit it or not, the West is under assault by Muslim radicals who wish to force the whole world to adhere to their religious customs and eventually be enslaved by sharia law and an Islamist caliphate.

Yes it is true, “one person’s terrorist might be another’s freedom fighter.” The best example of that is ISIS. When they behead a bunch of Christians on the seashore and then claim that they are coming to Rome and for all the Christians in the West, few would have a problem with calling it ‘terrorism.’  Yet 81% of the Muslims in the Middle East say they support ISIS regardless of what you may want to call them.

Changing the language doesn’t really alter the facts but it does disguise the size of the assault on our civilization and our freedoms.            *Top

>>>Don't Miss an Update!**CLICK NOW**Get ANSWERS For The Faith by email<<<

Leave a Reply