When is a terrorist not a terrorist?
When it’s a Hamas militant on BBC.
There’s been quite a response to BBC not using the ‘t’ word, instead preferring ‘gunmen’ or ‘militant’.
The Collins dictionary tells us that ‘You use militant to describe people who believe in something very strongly and are active in trying to bring about political or social change, often in extreme ways that other people find unacceptable.’
It then qualifies ‘unacceptable’ by giving the example of ‘Militant mineworkers have voted for a one-day stoppage next month.’
It also uses the example that ‘The militants might still find some new excuse to call a strike.’
So there you have it. There’s no difference between people such as doctors, teachers and train drivers who’ve all been on strike recently and Hamas terrorists who behead babies and film other atrocities to then post on the victims’ social media accounts.
Although militant is also ‘aggressive or vigorous, especially in the support of a cause or a militant protest’, that’s hardly applicable to Hamas, is it?
Hamas is already a proscribed terrorist organisation in the EU, UK and USA so it’s not saying anything that they’re not already by law.
Why is it so hard for BBC just to be factual?
Stewart, you hit the nail right on the proverbial with “Godincidences”.
My wife and I are acutely aware of Godincidences throughout our 42 years together. He is why we live where we live.
Hello, Alan.
That’s brilliant and thanks for the encouragement.