- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Foreign secretary’s call comes after group releases video of British-Israeli hostage it says died after being wounded in Israeli airstrike
David Cameron has urged the BBC to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation, reviving an accusation that the corporation shies away from a valid description of the Islamist group that is holding Israeli hostages.
The UK foreign secretary told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg that the organisation should reconsider its guidelines in light of a video released by Hamas showing the British-Israeli hostage Nadav Popplewell, who the group said had died in Gaza.
Hamas released a statement on Saturday saying the 51-year-old had died after being wounded in an Israeli airstrike a month ago. The video showed him with a black eye.
So what? What makes them any different? Does going through some bureaucratic process first legitimize the murder of civilians for political reasons?
It makes the use of the term terrorism an “appeal to emotion”.
This type of logical fallacy is how people prop up weak arguments.
There’s plenty of more appropriate words to describe Israel’s behaviour, but the comment I replied to is using “terrorism” given the emotional significance.
Ironically, his comment cites the BBC editorial guidelines explaining my point. Terrorism is an emotionally charged term.
Nobody stated that “terrorism” isn’t an emotionally charged term.
It’s kinda funny you’re talking about weak arguments when you completely avoided the question in my comment. It seems your only justification for why Israel’s (or many other government’s) actions can’t be labeled terrorism is “everyone else is doing it too” but that doesn’t really make a difference nor does it make the label incorrect.
Ok mate. Everyone is a terrorist. How alarming.
Still avoiding the question?
No a bureaucratic process does not legitimise murder it just means that “terrorism” is not the best term for this form of murder.
Why does the BBC not use this term?
Why is Cameron so keen to label Hamas as a terrorist organisation?
It’s because there are emotional connotations.
If the best argument you can make requires words like “terrorist” then you don’t have much of an argument.
Literally nobody is claming that it doesn’t have emotional connotations, so I don’t know why you keep harping on that.
Not sure what argument you’re talking about here. It’s also not disputed that Israel has, and is continuing to, slaughter tens of thousands of civilians, including infants.
This whole thread started with someone stating that Hamas are terrorists, but if you’re going to apply that to them then you also need to apply to Israel.
Goodness gracious. This is so tedious.
My original point was, and still is, calling Israel a terrorist organisation is an “appeal to emotion” - use of emotional language to bolster an argument.
There are much more appropriate ways to describe their behavior and express your disapproval.
The BBCs editorial guidelines, to which I am replying, very clearly explain why the use of the term “terrorist” is not useful.
Cameron want’s BBC to call Hamas terrorists, the commenter I originally replied to said “you should also call Israel terrorists”, I’m saying that if you dilute the meaning of “terrorist” sufficiently to apply to Israel it becomes meaningless, and there are more astute arguments to be made.
Here we are, n comments later, discussing how wrong I was not to express my hyperbolic disapproval for Israel’s behavior.