The BBC World Service loses a bit of my respect, by deciding to no longer use the word “terror” or “terrorism” in relation to 9-11.
Mr Damazer, speaking in a debate about television coverage of September 11 at the Newsworld conference in Barcelona, insisted the decision was not intended to downgrade the horror of the event. But if the word terrorism was used there would be implications for the description of more subjective acts of terror such as those carried out by Hamas in the Middle East or ETA in Spain.
He said of the attack on the US: “However appalling and disgusting it was, there will nevertheless be a constituency of your listeners who don’t regard it as terrorism. Describing it as such could downgrade your status as an impartial and independent broadcaster.”
While I respect their being consistent (in similarly not using the word in relation to IRA terror bombings), it also seems that removing any emotional content or reference to intent in such incidents ultimately renders them meaningless. Perhaps we should just call it an “incident,” since using the term “attack” implies a certain subjective judgment of aggressiveness and violent intent.
(Via WSJ OpinionJournal, which also comments, regarding the Ramadan bombing debate, “Hey, does it ever occur to these guys that slamming planes into the World Trade Center and murdering thousands of Americans might be against our religion?”)