West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Real American on July 11, 2005, 04:30:59 PM
-
....that in their continuing coverage of the terror in London, they refuse to refer to the attackers as "terrorists". Instead, in both their TV and Internet coverage, they are only calling them "bombers". If you look anywhere on their website, they never use the word "terrorist" in their hard news (not commentary).
How fucking sad is it that one of the largest media sources in the world refuses to acknowledge the presence of terrorism? How can we defeat terrorism when we won't even call it what it is? This is more more politically correct, left wing mumbo jumbo.
Al-Jazeera is doing the exact same thing. They also refer to the people who behead innocent civilains and set off bombs in markets in Iraq as "fighters" and the "resistance".
-
and I guess you're neutral?
-
and I guess you're neutral?
Yup.
Wasn't directed towards you lol
-
In terms of being neutral:
BBC >> Sky News >>>>> CNN >>>>>>>>>>> Fox News
-
Andy Milonakis Show>>>>>Fox News
-
CWalker is right about one thing, they should call a terrorist a terrorist, the only problem is, he doesn't understand who the real terrorists are.
A real terrorist can sit behind his office computer and starve a whole nation economically through sanctions, embargo's and trade policies, a real terrorist owns land in foriegn countries and formulates a consitution for that country that allows his businesses to usurp the wealth of the people indefinitely, a real terrorist can manipulate the masses of people all over the world because he owns all the major media outlets, must I continue?
-
Well, it doesn't really matter, everyone knows it was terrorist attacks, they used that letter the terrorist group posted on the site in like every coverage they had of the story so I think people know.
-
CWalker is right about one thing, they should call a terrorist a terrorist, the only problem is, he doesn't understand who the real terrorists are.
A real terrorist can sit behind his office computer and starve a whole nation economically through sanctions, embargo's and trade policies, a real terrorist owns land in foriegn countries and formulates a consitution for that country that allows his businesses to usurp the wealth of the people indefinitely, a real terrorist can manipulate the masses of people all over the world because he owns all the major media outlets, must I continue?
lmfao..
go look up the REAL definition in a dictionary.
-
and LMAO at cwalker.... so bombers aren't terrorist's? riiiiiiiiight... lmao
-
c3walker your a retard they have been refered to as terrorists on the bbc like said bomber is just another name. bbc are about the most independent and unbiased news outlet in the world even though its financed by the tax payers of britain so suck my schlong
-
CWalker is right about one thing, they should call a terrorist a terrorist, the only problem is, he doesn't understand who the real terrorists are.
A real terrorist can sit behind his office computer and starve a whole nation economically through sanctions, embargo's and trade policies, a real terrorist owns land in foriegn countries and formulates a consitution for that country that allows his businesses to usurp the wealth of the people indefinitely, a real terrorist can manipulate the masses of people all over the world because he owns all the major media outlets, must I continue?
lmfao..
go look up the REAL definition in a dictionary.
lol @ you totally missing the point
lol @you arguing definitions
what the American govt does is terrorism on a higher scale than "al qaeda" could ever imagine.
-
man, thats nuthin compared to the situation over here. White people who aren't muslims are backin up for them. Saying they are ok. And the terrorist are just some fools, and that not all muslims are like that. While we all know better. I CANT STAND THOSE FUCKIN WANKERS
-
man, thats nuthin compared to the situation over here. White people who aren't muslims are backin up for them. Saying they are ok. And the terrorist are just some fools, and that not all muslims are like that. While we all know better. I CANT STAND THOSE FUCKIN WANKERS
Sounds like you're the wanker.
-
So is this what is considered independent and unbiased media in Europe? The BBC says that they don't use the term terrorist because they don't want to make "value judgements" . They said calling the bombers terrorists could make it difficult to "fully understand" them.
You know you are left wing when you refuse to make a judgement about someone who uses explosive devices to blow up as many innocent civilains as possible. Stuff like this is why Americans laugh at the BBC. I love the British people.......I just hate their media.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/12/nbbc12.xml
BBC edits out the word terrorist
By Tom Leonard
(Filed: 12/07/2005)
The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.
Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".
The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".
Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.
Rod Liddle, a former editor of the Today programme, has accused the BBC of "institutionalised political correctness" in its coverage of British Muslims.
A BBC spokesman said last night: "The word terrorist is not banned from the BBC."
-
shame ya'll can see channel 4... they dont fuck around..
http://www.channel4.com/news/
-
Overseer do you really not see a problem with the article I just posted? Do you not see the bias of your media, which is very left wing and anti-American? How can you justify refusing to call a terrorist a terrorist?
-
i find it hilarious how you posted up that you 'hate' the british media.. yet post a link to the telegraph.. a uk newspaper..! LOL..
you think we all watch the BBC? i watch channel 4 news coz they dont gloss over a baby shit up like the mainstream stations.. sky news dont fuck around either.. the bbc has been dissed hard for its news 24 service as it costs way more than the sky one AND is crapper. ITV sux balls..we get CNN..
you find it left wing because america has no real left.. the BBC is _very_ middle of the road over here.
bomber and terrorist pretty much means the same thing.
they're trying to not whip the country up and over sensationalise things.
this is a moot point now anyways.. as the police said in their last statemnet very pointedley this was the work of terrorists.
-
A terrorist is a scumbag that kills people for the hell of it. To make a stupid point.
-
I love the British people.......I just hate their media.
You can hop off their dicks because half the Brits don't like you or other bigot ass Americans.... and most Europeans laugh at our media for being full of bullshit
Nah man you are a Muslim you wouldn't understand. Americans and the British have had a close bond since the beginning. They don't hate us.....it is the Muslims that aren't very popular over there.
-
Damn I just keep comin up with more points to make...
In case you didn't know... Muslims were here in America before your grandmother was banging herself with Polish hot dogs... a lot of the African slaves were Muslim when brought here, but were forced to convert, given new names, etc.
-
Americans complaining about biased media: (http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/Themes/dubcc/images/post/thumbdown.gif)
As long as you have CNN and Fox News, you can't really say shit about BBC or Al-Jazeera for that sake.
First, you have Fox News, which is more of a political station than a news station, and who works as a propaganda channel for certain politicians, with a preset agenda.
Then there's CNN, who sit inside American tanks with bulletproof vests to report how terrible "the terrorists" are, and who's mission is "to report from the good side".
-
Overseer do you really not see a problem with the article I just posted? Do you not see the bias of your media, which is very left wing and anti-American? How can you justify refusing to call a terrorist a terrorist?
whats wrong with it being anti american (which not all of it is), it represents about half of the british peoples feelings and probably about 80 % of the worlds opions. maybe you should look at the particular aspects they oppose about america and you can see why... and so what if they don;t use the word terrorist because they've gone over the top with political correctness it justs further shows how they are trying to report the news in without any bias. and on the subject of being left wing the sun, the star, the express, the times, the mail and the telegraph are all right wing newspapers
-
Overseer do you really not see a problem with the article I just posted? Do you not see the bias of your media, which is very left wing and anti-American? How can you justify refusing to call a terrorist a terrorist?
whats wrong with it being anti american (which not all of it is), it represents about half of the british peoples feelings and probably about 80 % of the worlds opions. maybe you should look at the particular aspects they oppose about america and you can see why... and so what if they don;t use the word terrorist because they've gone over the top with political correctness it justs further shows how they are trying to report the news in without any bias. and on the subject of being left wing the sun, the star, the express, the times, the mail and the telegraph are all right wing newspapers
LMAO... CWalker is trying to suck some dick and instead he gets it shoved up his ass.... CWalker you just got owned man
-
CWalker is right about one thing, they should call a terrorist a terrorist, the only problem is, he doesn't understand who the real terrorists are.
A real terrorist can sit behind his office computer and starve a whole nation economically through sanctions, embargo's and trade policies, a real terrorist owns land in foriegn countries and formulates a consitution for that country that allows his businesses to usurp the wealth of the people indefinitely, a real terrorist can manipulate the masses of people all over the world because he owns all the major media outlets, must I continue?
very true, and nicely put
-
By the way, you can dislike Muslims all you want.... they just keep flooding the country, work without paying taxes, take their welfare checks on top of that, get free housing, go to school for free, get a shitload of government money to attend college, and then go back home and help their own countries by working there and contributing to those economies.......... all with your tax money :)
On behalf of all Muslims I want to thank you CWalker.
Its true, till the part where you say they go home
-
I turned it on the other day and one of the first things I heard them say was terrorist. :monkey_dance2:
-
The bombers are without a doub Terrorists. George Bush is a terrorist at some level, there is no denying this. IMO
-
Got a couple of contacts in the BBC...
Apparently the reason BBC reporters have been told not to use the word 'terrorist' is that the BBC operates a massive world service and it's concerned that that word will offend viewers in other countries/regions.
-
Got a couple of contacts in the BBC...
Apparently the reason BBC reporters have been told not to use the word 'terrorist' is that the BBC operates a massive world service and it's concerned that that word will offend viewers in other countries/regions.
Why would people be offended by a word. Everything has got to be all politically correct nowadays it's stupid as fuck.
-
which is very left wing and anti-American?
Are you comparing the two?
-
The bombers are without a doub Terrorists. George Bush is a terrorist at some level, there is no denying this. IMO
Does George Bush intentionally attack innocent civilians? Show me any tiny bit of evidence that he does and your argument might have a shred of legitimacy.
-
I'm just going to mention a few of the incidences in Afghanistan:
Day time cluster bomb attack on the village of Shaker Qala on October 22, 2001, killing 9 civilians and injuring 14.
Carpet-bombing by B-52s of frontline village near Khanabad on November 18, 2001, killing 150 civilians.
Mid-day attack on two residential areas in Ni on May 7, 2002 during which cluster bombs were dropped close to market place and hospital killing 14 and injuring 30.
Attack on a wedding party in July 2002 killing 40 civilians and injuring 60 others.
Oh so those were intentional civilian killings?!
I don't understand how people can't make a simple distinction between intentional targeting of innocent civilians and mistakes that occur in war? Is it just your ignorance or lack of common sense?
-
LOL. "Day time cluster bomb attack of the village of Shaker Qala". What are you expecting to hit besides civilians? So we go out there, blow their shit up, and then hire private American contracters to make a shitload of money off of what we did. Like the natives can't build their own town. I wonder why they're mad.