5 ms·

One thing I've been thinking about is how we use "terrorist" to describe groups rather than tactics. Governments maintain lists of "terror groups" which, as the

by benwad 3y ago

One thing I've been thinking about is how we use "terrorist" to describe groups rather than tactics. Governments maintain lists of "terror groups" which, as the article mentions, and everyone has a different idea of who belongs in there. But terrorism is about tactics: indiscriminate killing/maiming of civilians to inspire terror in a population. Lots of groups, including governments, have used these tactics. And they should be called out when they're used, no matter who by. Hamas and Israel have both used terror tactics at points in this war, and they should both be called out for it. But calling one group "terrorists" and the other group "just trying to protect their country" is just pure propaganda. I'm from the UK and noticed similar labelling in the Troubles. The Provisional IRA were a terrorist group, but when the British Army massacred a load of civilians, they didn't become a terrorist group.

rewmie 3y ago
> And they should be called out when they're used, no matter who by. I think you're unwittingly proving BBC's point. An objective journalist reports the facts, which means things like who did what to who. "Calling out" is not compatible with presenting an objective description of the facts. It's the opposite. It's communicating your personal conclusion and trying to attack something you made it your personal target because you disagree in terms of morality. That's not their responsibility. Their role is not to sneak their personal opinion alongside the objective facts. It's not their role in clear-cut, obvious examples such as a terrorist attack, and it's still not their role in more nuanced topics. If the reader is able to piece together their own ideas and opinions, why should that be spoon-fed to them?
- benwad 3y ago
  When I say "calling out" I'm referring to labelling acts as terrorist acts. I probably could have used better wording. But this argument is all about trying to provide an objective description of the facts. I agree with the BBC here - calling a group a "terrorist group" is an editorial choice, even if we do have government list of terrorist groups. I'd say that the attacks on the music festival and villages near the fence easily qualify for the term "terrorism", but so does Israel's retaliatory bombing of civilian targets. We're still quibbling over definitions (which is IMO inevitable), but at least we're talking about actions, rather than entire groups.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    The BBC labels those acts as atrocities. To me, that's a more forceful and loaded word than "terroristic acts"
    - benwad 3y ago
      Yeah I think that's a better term. It's something that can be applied to both state and non state actors, and doesn't make implicit judgments about the legitimacy of either.
- benterix 3y ago
  Something that is not explicitly said is that the people caring about Gaza split into two groups, pro-Hamas and pro-Israeli. These two groups vehemently oppose each other and believe only their side is right. This is quite different from the society at large who recognize that both sides are guilty and both sides are victims, and don't see any hope to solve this problem in any way. So of course both sides care about reporting and how each group is presented. There will be more and more pressure for others to take sides and describe what is happening using labels that fit their side of the story.
gerjomarty 3y ago
I should note that John Simpson was being interviewed about this article on BBC News last night and said they had the same policy for the IRA during the Troubles, and had the same accusations thrown at them by politicians then as they are now.
- benwad 3y ago
  Interesting, I'll have to give that a listen!
  - gerjomarty 3y ago
    I was trying to find a link to it earlier on, but the programme it was on (The Context) doesn't seem to be available on iPlayer, unfortunately.
sunshinerag 3y ago
Hamas behead civilians including babies and paraded them on Tiktok and telegram channels. Clear definition of terror to answer BBC's quandary.
- hoorible 3y ago
  Even the IDL admitted they couldn’t confirm those reports. Hamas has done plenty of atrocious things, we don’t need to sensationalize.
  - sunshinerag 3y ago
    What do you mean IDL did not confirm those reports? Hamas itself published those videos proudly. IDL have videos of the kibbutz massacres
  - sunshinerag 3y ago
    There is nothing sensational to state facts. Denial would be sensational and would require introspection.
    - Gunnerhead 3y ago
      You said they beheaded civilians including babies, that’s sensational. There were horrific acts, yes, but any reports of beheading of babies has been refuted by reporters and even the IDF.
      - sunshinerag 3y ago
        "reports of beheading of babies has been refuted by reporters and even the IDF" No. Unless you are going to link to sources. Read the IDF spokesman wordings carefully.
    - hoorible 3y ago
      https://www.businessinsider.com/idf-says-wont-back-up-beheaded-babies-disrespectful-2023-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/idf-says-wont-back-up-behead... I’m not denying massacres took place or that Hamas has done unforgivable things. Just that baby-beheading specifically is getting thrown around a lot without proof and even Israel is refusing to corroborate the claims.

by benwad 3y ago

rewmie 3y ago

> And they should be called out when they're used, no matter who by. I think you're unwittingly proving BBC's point. An objective journalist reports the facts, which means things like who did what to who. "Calling out" is not compatible with presenting an objective description of the facts. It's the opposite. It's communicating your personal conclusion and trying to attack something you made it your personal target because you disagree in terms of morality. That's not their responsibility. Their role is not to sneak their personal opinion alongside the objective facts. It's not their role in clear-cut, obvious examples such as a terrorist attack, and it's still not their role in more nuanced topics. If the reader is able to piece together their own ideas and opinions, why should that be spoon-fed to them?

benwad 3y ago
When I say "calling out" I'm referring to labelling acts as terrorist acts. I probably could have used better wording. But this argument is all about trying to provide an objective description of the facts. I agree with the BBC here - calling a group a "terrorist group" is an editorial choice, even if we do have government list of terrorist groups. I'd say that the attacks on the music festival and villages near the fence easily qualify for the term "terrorism", but so does Israel's retaliatory bombing of civilian targets. We're still quibbling over definitions (which is IMO inevitable), but at least we're talking about actions, rather than entire groups.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  The BBC labels those acts as atrocities. To me, that's a more forceful and loaded word than "terroristic acts"
  - benwad 3y ago
    Yeah I think that's a better term. It's something that can be applied to both state and non state actors, and doesn't make implicit judgments about the legitimacy of either.
benterix 3y ago
Something that is not explicitly said is that the people caring about Gaza split into two groups, pro-Hamas and pro-Israeli. These two groups vehemently oppose each other and believe only their side is right. This is quite different from the society at large who recognize that both sides are guilty and both sides are victims, and don't see any hope to solve this problem in any way. So of course both sides care about reporting and how each group is presented. There will be more and more pressure for others to take sides and describe what is happening using labels that fit their side of the story.

gerjomarty 3y ago

I should note that John Simpson was being interviewed about this article on BBC News last night and said they had the same policy for the IRA during the Troubles, and had the same accusations thrown at them by politicians then as they are now.

benwad 3y ago
Interesting, I'll have to give that a listen!
- gerjomarty 3y ago
  I was trying to find a link to it earlier on, but the programme it was on (The Context) doesn't seem to be available on iPlayer, unfortunately.

sunshinerag 3y ago

Hamas behead civilians including babies and paraded them on Tiktok and telegram channels. Clear definition of terror to answer BBC's quandary.

hoorible 3y ago
Even the IDL admitted they couldn’t confirm those reports. Hamas has done plenty of atrocious things, we don’t need to sensationalize.
- sunshinerag 3y ago
  What do you mean IDL did not confirm those reports? Hamas itself published those videos proudly. IDL have videos of the kibbutz massacres
- sunshinerag 3y ago
  There is nothing sensational to state facts. Denial would be sensational and would require introspection.
  - Gunnerhead 3y ago
    You said they beheaded civilians including babies, that’s sensational. There were horrific acts, yes, but any reports of beheading of babies has been refuted by reporters and even the IDF.
    - sunshinerag 3y ago
      "reports of beheading of babies has been refuted by reporters and even the IDF" No. Unless you are going to link to sources. Read the IDF spokesman wordings carefully.
  - hoorible 3y ago
    https://www.businessinsider.com/idf-says-wont-back-up-beheaded-babies-disrespectful-2023-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/idf-says-wont-back-up-behead... I’m not denying massacres took place or that Hamas has done unforgivable things. Just that baby-beheading specifically is getting thrown around a lot without proof and even Israel is refusing to corroborate the claims.