Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Charlie Hebdo killers should NOT be called 'terrorists', claims BBC executive Tarik Kafala

Tarik is no doubt a Muslim

The Parisian extremists who murdered 17 people in a series of attacks including the Charlie Hebdo massacre should not be called 'terrorists', a senior BBC executive has said.

Tarik Kafala, who runs BBC Arabic, said the term 'terrorist' was too 'loaded' and 'value-laden' to describe Said and Cherif Kouachi and their accomplice Amedy Coulibaly.

The Kouachi brothers shot dead 12 at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris and Coulibaly killed four at a Kosher deli after shooting dead a policewoman.

All three were eventually shot dead by French special forces after the Islamists all burst out of their hideouts two weeks ago.

Mr Kafalam runs the BBC's largest non-English language TV, radio and online news services, which have a weekly audience of 36million people.

He told The Independent: 'We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist. What we try to do is to say that 'two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine'. That's enough.


Another attempt to cover up what poison Islam is


Stan B said...


the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Since the word involves "politics" then I guess this was technically not "terrorism" as there was no political component to the slayings. It was purely a "revenge" issue - no call for changes to France's political system was demanded.

It should be referred to as "religious violence," as it was motivated by a desire for vengeance based on religious beliefs. Maybe even "Islamic Violence," since it was carried out by those people motivated by the "insult" to Islam that Charlie Hebdo commits on a regular basis.

I'm OK with calling it "Islamic Violence."

Use the Name, Luke said...

But Stan! Stating that is too "racist", especially since it's true!

I have to say that I don't understand how people can think like that. It's just as rational as jumping off tall buildings claiming they can fly or stepping in front of trains they claim are not there. The truth is clear and obvious, yet they work so hard to pretend that it is not and that they are "better" (if such a "value-laden" term can be used) than people who admit the truth.

I wonder what they call their children? "Biological material in a shape similar to my own"?

Anonymous said...

While I agree that it is religious violence the major aim was to suppress free speech about islam which is a political goal. I would argue that revenge was a minor to irrelevant part of the issue.


Anonymous said...

The purpose was not revenge. It was to send a message to the media to discourage criticism of Islam. It is totally political. It was terrorism. Period.

Bird of Paradise said...

Why did BBC hire this yoyo anyway?

stinky said...

Why did BBC hire this yoyo anyway?

Middle East baksheesh, spread far and wide.

Anonymous said...

If it is not terrorism then it must be moderate Muslims objecting freedom of speech. Something that is not allowed in Islam as it might start people thinking about the reality of Islam and suppression.

Go Away Bird said...

Shall we call them LIBERALS?

President Not Sure said...

I agree, they should not be called terrorists... They need to be called out as the "Islamic terrorists" they actually are.