Why can't the British media use the "t" word?
At the end of a lengthy editorial about this week's events in India, the JPost poses a question that deserves an answer:3. And finally, even though this was clearly an assault against innocent civilians and exclusively against civilian targets - hospitals, hotels and a train station - why does much of the British media, including the BBC and SkyNews, label the killers "militants" instead of terrorists? Why does the The Guardian join Al-Jazeera in calling them "gunmen"?The Post is spot-on with the question. Unfortunately, the answer seems to be that the spineless British chattering classes are too busy bowing to the Muslims in their midst to even notice the problem.
This may sound like a marginal concern, but nomenclature matters: The primary, often only, target of terrorists are civilians. Anti-civilian warfare is a key tool of Muslim extremists. Terrorism is a cruelty that has become the scourge of modern civilization and changed the way we live. It has debased humanity.
The international community, together with responsible elements in the media, should show zero tolerance for the kind of depravity manifested in Mumbai.
And a vital step to confronting it effectively is to recognize terrorism and call it by its name.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:52 PM
2 Comments:
The BBC is institutionally anti-semitic and pro-Islam. Have they released the Balen report? I wonder why not.
Not a sheep,
That is true, but I wasn't just referring to al-Beeb.
Post a Comment
<< Home