Terrorist Definition WI

Condottiero

In Spain we are usually shocked by the terminology that british and north-american media give to the terrorist group ETA. After the attack on Navarre University in media like the BBC or the CNN talked about "Basque separatist Group" and we have seen even defining them as Liberation Movement or Freedom Fighters. Here it has been compared as defining Bin-Laden as a Muslim Activist or the PKK as a Liberation Movement.

What would be necessary in the US and Britain to see ETA as what it is, a terrorist group, and to see al-Qaeda as what it is not, a Freedom Fighters Group?
 

Alexius

There is a difference, though. ETA has a political wing, while Al Qaeda does not. ETA's aims (an independent Basque state) could conceivably be achieved, Al Qaeda's (the Global Randomid Caliphate) could not.

ETA is really more comparable to the IRA, and IMO the BBC's coverage of both is fairly similar.
 
Shimbo

Shimbo

This should be in chat.

As far as the question goes, the BBC producer guidelines state: "We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. We should not adopt other people's language as our own. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like "liberate", "court martial" or "execute" in the absence of a clear judicial process. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as "bomber", "attacker", "gunmen", "kidnapper", "insurgent" or "militant." Our responsibility is to remain impartial and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom."

IMO in general the BBC meets those guidelines. If you can find specific instances where they failed then fair enough, but I'm not sure that invalidates the principal, and it certainly doesn't imply a pro-ETA stance on the part of the BBC. You and I both regard both the IRA and ETA as terror organisations, but they themselves don't, therefore the BBC in trying to be impartial can't use that word.

I just did a very quick search of the BBC News website (including the two reports you posted) and it seemed to me that when the BBC report used the world terrorist it was attributing it to government or political sources, which of course do not use impartial language.
 
Last edited:

Alexius

Shimbo said:
This should be in chat.
Click to expand...
Seconded, could it be moved?
Condottiero- I appreciate that, but the BBC probably shouldn't cover ETA in the same terms as Al-Qaeda, which is what you are suggesting. I'll accept that the BBC should refer to ETA as terrorists.

More importantly, it is possible to be both terrorists and a liberation movement. One is a means, the other is an end. ETA, the PKK, and arguably the IRA, are/were both- they are liberation movements that try to achieve their goal by means of terrorism.

And as for your WI, it requires Al-Qaeda's goals to change so it is trying to secure independence/autonomy for a specific area.
 
Shimbo

Shimbo

Alexius said:
(snip) I'll accept that the BBC should refer to ETA as terrorists.
(snip)
Click to expand...

You, I and all right thinking people may regard them as terrorists, but there is a small minority of people who don't and the BBC is therefore required to use impartial terms.
 

Condottiero

As answer to my original question I was thinking more on something like: "ETA targets foreigners and al-Qaeda is still considered an anti-someone ally".

I though this was an AH forum after all.
 
Shimbo

Shimbo

Condottiero said:
As answer to my original question I was thinking more on something like: "ETA targets foreigners and al-Qaeda is still considered an anti-someone ally".

I though this was an AH forum after all.
Click to expand...

Yes but the premise of your WI is incorrect IMO. ETA is already regarded unsympathetically by most people in UK + USA. Your specific allegations about BBC coverage of ETA are either meaningless (ETA is a Basque separatist organisation, referring to them as such is hardly casting them in a sympathetic light), or incorrect IMO and even if they were not they wouldn't be evidence that a large section of society in the UK + USA regard ETA in a sympathetic light. If you have any evidence that the mainstream UK or US media refer to ETA sympathetically then please post a link.

BTW IIRC there is quite a substantial group of people in the USA who regard the IRA in a sympathetic light (at least until recently this appeared to be the majority opinion IMO).
 

Dr. Strangelove

Banned
Alexius said:
More importantly, it is possible to be both terrorists and a liberation movement. One is a means, the other is an end. ETA, the PKK, and arguably the IRA, are/were both- they are liberation movements that try to achieve their goal by means of terrorism.
Click to expand...

Not really, since the 80's ETA has become more of an oversized mafia than an actual separatist movement. If Spain gave independence to the Basque Country tomorrow, they wouldn't know what to do, besides keep on killing and terrorizing those that they think don't fit in their view of Euskadi. ETA's terror is something deeper than just putting the occasional bomb. Since 1990, thousands of people have had to left the Basque Country only to escape ETA's pressure, and thousands more have to live with bodyguards 24/7. And I mean regular people: shopkeepers, medics, clerks, who have made the "mistake" of being members of a non-nationalist party. ETA is using terror tactics to, first, cleanse the basque country of what they see as "impure" basques, and only second to a clear political goal. If that is not being a terrorist, then I don't know what it is, and, like Condottiero, it irks me a lot when the anglo media refer to them as "separatists", as if what they could be somehow justified in the appropriate circumstances. A separatist can be right in the end if he wins, but ETA will never be right even if it wins (which will not).

Lastly, there is a key difference between ETA and IRA that is never explained: the IRA was a terrorist organization, but in the end it was Sinn Feinn's political leadership who was in charge. In ETA's case, it is the band's direction who is in charge, and their political ramifications are only puppets. You can safely negotiate with the IRA because you know you have a politician in the other side of the table, but when you negotiate with ETA you only have a criminal.
 
Shimbo

Shimbo

Dr. Strangelove said:
Not really, since the 80's ETA has become more of an oversized mafia than an actual separatist movement. If Spain gave independence to the Basque Country tomorrow, they wouldn't know what to do, besides keep on killing and terrorizing those that they think don't fit in their view of Euskadi. ETA's terror is something deeper than just putting the occasional bomb. Since 1990, thousands of people have had to left the Basque Country only to escape ETA's pressure, and thousands more have to live with bodyguards 24/7. And I mean regular people: shopkeepers, medics, clerks, who have made the "mistake" of being members of a non-nationalist party. ETA is using terror tactics to, first, cleanse the basque country of what they see as "impure" basques, and only second to a clear political goal. If that is not being a terrorist, then I don't know what it is, and, like Condottiero, it irks me a lot when the anglo media refer to them as "separatists", as if what they could be somehow justified in the appropriate circumstances. A separatist can be right in the end if he wins, but ETA will never be right even if it wins (which will not).

Lastly, there is a key difference between ETA and IRA that is never explained: the IRA was a terrorist organization, but in the end it was Sinn Feinn's political leadership who was in charge. In ETA's case, it is the band's direction who is in charge, and their political ramifications are only puppets. You can safely negotiate with the IRA because you know you have a politician in the other side of the table, but when you negotiate with ETA you only have a criminal.
Click to expand...

I've heard all the things you say about ETA said about the IRA (and Loyalist terrorists in Northern Ireland) I'm afraid.:(
 

King Thomas

Banned
Maybe the Russians invade Afganistan again, there is no 9/11 done by it, and in this senario some see Al Queda as the good guys fighting against the Russian Bear.

Meanwhile 9/11 is done by ETA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top