←back to thread

523 points mhga | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
YZF ◴[] No.44496607[source]
The BBC having 21,000 employees (5500 journalists). Only 100 signed.

From my perspective the BBC is extremely anti-Israeli but for some people this is obviously not good enough. They want the BBC to champion their cause. Naturally people supporting the anti-Israeli cause who only get anti-Israeli content will feel that the BBC is "pro" Israel. Nothing could be farther from the truth and Pro-Israeli media looks nothing like the BBC.

This is from 2006:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/governors_archive/im...

"We were appointed by the Governors to assess whether the BBC's coverage of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict meets the required standards of impartiality."

...

"apart from individual lapses, sometimes of tone, language or attitude, there was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias; on the contrary there was evidence, in the programming and in other ways, of a commitment to be fair, accurate and impartial;"

...

"these shortcomings include:"

...

"Equally in the months preceding the Palestinian elections there was little hard questioning of their leaders"

...

This has been a big criticism of the BBC which is still not addressed:

"The term "terrorism" should accordingly be used in respect of relevant events since it is the most accurate expression for actions which involve violence against randomly selected civilians with the intention of causing terror for ideological, including political or religious, objectives, whether perpetrated by state or non-state agencies."

replies(2): >>44496627 #>>44496670 #
aaomidi ◴[] No.44496627[source]
That definition of Terrorism would make Israel a terrorist state.
replies(2): >>44496706 #>>44496749 #
ithkuil ◴[] No.44496749[source]
I guess it's hard to define words. Surely terrorism has this vague meaning of doing very evil and violent things.

But a picked up a random dictionary and it says: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims".

I struggle to understand what political aim Israel is pursuing when using unlawful violence and intimidation.

If you believe that Israel is performing a genocide what is the point of explicitly instilling more fear in the victims? Just sadism? I genuinely don't understand what advantage would Israel have in employing terror tactics against Palestinians. Is the idea that they do so in order to make them even more angry so they can justify their genocide? Is that the argument? Or am I not giving the same meaning to the word "terrorism" as you do?

I don't want to argue about which side is on the right side or whatnot; I found that this kind of conversation is is highly unproductive online. But I am interested in understanding how words have changed their meaning over time. Is terrorist now just a synonym for "murdering civilians"?

replies(4): >>44497128 #>>44497633 #>>44497668 #>>44498485 #
dvdplm ◴[] No.44497668[source]
Sadism for some, sure. For most IDF personnel I guess it’s more about “operational expediency”: if the population is terrified they’ll listen to your evacuation orders and show up to your aid distribution/killing fields on time. Finding terrorists one by one is hard work; tossing a bomb on a whole building is quicker and safer.

Terror is just a tool in the end.

replies(1): >>44503177 #
1. _DeadFred_ ◴[] No.44503177[source]
War sucks and soldiers don't want to die. As true today as it has been since forever. My grandfather a Marine in the Pacific used to call in flamethrowers instead of going in after Japanese soldiers in bunkers. Helped burn people alive. Was a burden he carried the rest of his life. War sucks. It sucks young men are put in these situations making these kinds of calls.