July 23, 2006
The British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) has admitted that many of the victims of Israeli retaliation in Lebanon are terrorists and not innocent civilians. A BBC reporter said he saw Hizbullah terrorists using a private home and added, "It is difficult to quantify who is a terrorist and who is a civilian."The absurdity of the BBC reporter's statement should be clear to any English-speaker upon reading it. It's akin to saying "It is difficult to determine which people are thieves and which people are citizens." Both statements are nonsensical. Though not all citizens are thieves, all thieves are citizens. Thus, there's no dichotomy between "thieves" on the one hand and "citizens" on the other. Similarly, there's no dichotomy between "terrorists" on the one hand and "civilians" on the other. Though not all civilians are terrorists, most terrorists are civilians.Media reports have emphasized that Israeli air strikes have killed more than 350 Lebanese civilians, prompting accusations that the IDF is carrying out "collective punishment" on the country.
Since I realize that the BBC is a foreign news organization and its journalists may not speak English as a first language, it occurs to me that the proper usage of rarely-used English words like "terrorist" and "civilian" may not be clear to them. In order to prevent further confusion, I've put together the following helpful glossary for use by the Beeb's journalists in the future:
"Terrorism": "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons"; "the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation [sic] or coercion or instilling fear"From the above, it should be obvious that the only Hizb'Allah terrorists who aren't civilians are those (if any) enrolled in the Lebanese military. All the rest of the Hizb'Allah terrorists are, by definition, "civilians". In other words, the BBC journalist's statement means the following:"Terrorist(s)": "One who engages in terrorism"; "someone who employs terrorism"; "one who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant"; "people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets"
"Civilian": "a nonmilitary citizen; associated with or performed by civilians as contrasted with the military... a person who is not a member of a military... [a] citizen not part of the state through participation in the military or police force."
It's tough to separate those people engaging in nongovernmental violence against civilians from those who are not in the Lebanese military.If it's not clear to you by now, the reason it's difficult to separate them is because they're the same people.
BBC journalists: please contact me if you need any further instruction in the English language. I'm happy to help. I know learning a second language can be tough.
UPDATE: One of the commenters accused me of taking the BBC reporter's comment "out of context" and thereby changing its meaning. I've included more of the news article in order to provide the larger "context."
Posted by: Ragnar at
01:43 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 545 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: James at July 23, 2006 01:49 PM (tJoRF)
Like the above commentor, I take the phrase to mean if a terrorist has no uniform and is in a house with civilians it's kind of hard to tell the difference. Especially if they are shooting at you and you don't have time to make the differentiation. By focusing on the one sentence you took it out of context.
Posted by: baba-phooey at July 23, 2006 01:57 PM (ET0mz)
The entire point of my post was that Hizb'Allah terrorists ARE, by definition, "civilians," so it is nonsensical to say, for example, "the terrorists are pretending to be civilians." They aren't pretending at all. They ARE civilians. Now, they may not be INNOCENT civilians, but that's a different matter entirely.
Posted by: The All Seeing Eye at July 23, 2006 02:28 PM (I9YKk)
I think my head just imploded.
Posted by: KG at July 23, 2006 02:50 PM (m/1e2)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 23, 2006 03:01 PM (v3I+x)
Nothing was taken out of context.
Hizbullah is not a country, a nation, or a soverign territory. These are guerilla fighters - domestic, and foreign. As such, they are not considered traditional "soldiers." They are terrorists and murderers, though. This makes them fair game for retaliatory bullets and bombs.
For any thinking person, the fact that Hizbullah is composed of "civilians" does not mean that Hizbullah terrorists have some kind of protection from retaliation or attack that common non-militarized civilians recieve. Neither do their supporters and those who aid them in committing their acts of terror.
They regularly engage in acts of war against a soverign nation, and are subject to any retaliatory action that they instigate. Hiding among civilian populations (often times with their support and aid) does not exempt them or their civilian counterparts from harm. The civilians that aid Hizbullah are as guilty as the terrorists themselves, and also deserve any punishment they incur. The civilians that do not support Hizbullah but get caught in the cross fire are unfortunate victims of this sick and psychotic suicide campaign that Hizbullah has decided to drag the region into.
All-seeing Eye took nothing out of context - he made a very cogent point. The BBC admitted (inadvertantly, it would seem) that their reports on "civlian casualties" may be misleading and unable to fully describe the situation on the ground, considering the fact that guerilla fighters don't fit Geneva Convention definitions of a "soldier" even though they employ the weapons of and are subject to the retaliation from traditional military forces.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 23, 2006 03:12 PM (jWYAe)
Here is a hint; the one carrying an AK47 and waving the yellow Hizbullah banner screaming hate-filled diatribes hiding behind an infant's crib might be your suspect.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at July 23, 2006 03:27 PM (Bp6wV)
Posted by: Vinnie - Editor In Chief Pro Temporeâ„¢ at July 23, 2006 04:43 PM (/qy9A)
Perhaps they should be taken at their word.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 23, 2006 05:21 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: hondo at July 23, 2006 05:30 PM (MVgHp)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 23, 2006 05:37 PM (8e/V4)
I DON'T WANT TO HERE THAT SHIT! WON'T TAKE IT FROM MY DAUGHTER - WON'T TAKE IT FROM YOU!
WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW MORE THAN EVER IS GOOD BARTENDERS!
Posted by: hondo at July 23, 2006 06:03 PM (MVgHp)
Posted by: rob at July 23, 2006 06:26 PM (jaQRE)
I agree that those who openly support Hizb'Allah can be taken at their word, but I'm not sure that's the full group of the Hizb'Allah supporters.
Hypothetical: Ahmed died (sans AK-47) standing at the controls of a Hizb'Allah rocket launcher. He'd told his Christian acquaintance two weeks earlier he didn't support Hizb'Allah. Terrorist? You make the call.
Posted by: The All Seeing Eye at July 23, 2006 08:01 PM (I9YKk)
If identifying a terrorist is so easy how did the FBI not spot any of the 9/11 terrorists ???
Posted by: rob at July 23, 2006 09:14 PM (jaQRE)
Posted by: pivalleygirl at July 25, 2006 06:06 AM (BQRI6)
34 queries taking 0.0728 seconds, 171 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
