送信日時 :2001年 11月 16日 金曜日 7:41 PM
※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※
『亜空間通信』100号(2001/11/15)
【BBCワールドサービスが9.11.米国事変を「テロ」呼ばわりしない宣言の朗報】
※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※
転送、転載、引用、大歓迎！
ついに100号、記念になる内容のものをと願っていたところへ、格好の新情報が出現した。以下は、韋駄天掲示板（2003年11月24日訂正：阿修羅戦争掲示板）からの挨拶はした上での「無断」転載であるが、BBCワールドサービスが９・11米国事変を「テロ」呼ばわりしないことにしたという宣言である。まずは私自身の即座の論評と挨拶である。
いやあ、ついに出ましたね。他の方もさる事ながら、佐藤さんの国際的情報収集能力には頭を下げます。私がこの電網宝庫掲示板に通いだしたのは、友人が、この事件のイスラエル関与説が出ていると聞いたからでした。これこそ文字どおりの電網宝庫です。
私は事件の翌日、9月12日に、従来からの資料を添えて、この事件のモサド関与説を発表しました。直後に、「アメリカ『ゲリラ攻撃』」とし、その後、「9.11.アメリカ重大事件」と命名しました。日本軍による「満州某重大事件」こと張作霖爆殺事件との類似を暗喩したものでした。
あの種の日本軍の謀略でも現地の中国人を使っています。実行犯と陰で操るのが違う国籍なのは、むしろ、謀略の常と言ってもいいのです。
早速、無断転載で広げます。
以下、すべて転載。
世界的に公平な報道態度を重視して、あえて９・11米国事変を「テロ」呼ばわりしないBBCワールドサービス
[ ★阿修羅♪ 戦争・国際情勢４ ]
投稿者 佐藤雅彦
日時 2001 年 11 月 16 日 11:58:22:●米国や、その卑しい子分である日本では、政治屋もメディアも９・11事変のことを「テロリズム」と呼んでいますが、「terrorism」の本来の定義は「時の政治権力者による恐怖支配」を意味しているので、これは言葉の意味や成り立ちを知らない庶民を恐怖に追い込んで支配するためのマインドコントロールでしかありません。
つまり、暴力的な政治行為に「テロリズム」というレッテルを貼ることによって副次的な恐怖政治を扇動しているわけであり、こういうプロパガンダ行為のほうが「terrorism」の本来の定義にふさわしいものと言えるでしょう。（私はこれを「メタ・テロリズム」と呼びたいと思いますが。）
●さて、BBCは、かつての大戦中には「可能な限り真実を伝え、それによって敵味方双方の信頼を獲得し、いよいよ必要なときに大胆にウソをつく」という戦略的なプロパガンダを行なってきた放送局として知られています。
●それはともかくとして、今回の９・11米国事変については「米国に対するテロリズム」と呼ばないで、あえて「米国に対する攻撃」と呼ぶという方針を守っているそうです。
●米国事変が起きて以来、世界貿易センターの間近の旧ロックフェラー所有地に建っている国連ビルのなかでは「テロ撲滅国際条約」を作ろうと、今さらながらの大騒ぎを繰り広げています。９・11事変が「テロリズム」だというなら、米軍が民間機を撃ち落としたり潜水艦体当たりで水産高校の実習船を沈めたり、スキー場のロープウェイを“撃墜”したり、そういう「テロリズム」は山ほど起きてきたわけです。（軍隊が起こした対民間殺戮行為だから「テロリズム」じゃない、というのなら「不正規戦争」と呼んでもいいですけどね……。）
あるいはパレスチナでは、ユダヤ人たちを苦しめたワルシャワゲットーや「水晶の夜」のような差別的虐待とテロリズムと、さらに虐殺行為が、もう半世紀も続いているわけです。そうした状況のなかで「テロリズム撲滅条約」を作るというのだから、永らく国連の決議を無視して不正占領や住民虐待を続け、９・11事変の直前の国連会議で「アパルトヘイト国家」と規定されるところだったイスラエルなんぞ、たちまち「テロリスト国家」とされてしまうことでしょう。
……というわけで、何が「テロリズム」か、という基本的な概念定義をめぐって国連は大混乱しているわけです。
●英米の中東・アジア政策がクルド人やアフガニスタン人などの難民流出を助長してきたことは歴然としていますが、そういう政策に無節操に加担しておきながら、日本に漂着した難民を「難民認定」せずに取っ捕まえて違法入国者強制収容キャンプに閉じこめたり本国に強制送還しているなんてのも、これまた一種の「テロリズム」と呼べるでしょう。
●BBCが９・11米国事変を「テロリズム」ではなく「攻撃」と呼ぶことに決めたのは、ひとつの見識でしょうな。なぜなら「テロリズム」という言葉には、政治的思惑やイデオロギー的意図や、何を「恐怖」と見なすかについての主観が付いて回るからです。
●日本のメディアは、どうせ海外メディアの既報やインターネット宣伝をパクって、おうむ返しに繰り返しているだけのブローカーでしかないので、客観性とか信頼性など大事だとは思っていないのでしょうね。市ヶ谷の大本営が、ワシントンに“移転”しただけで、それを垂れ流す卑しさと見識のなさは、半世紀たっても全然変わっていないわけですから……。
●以下の記事は、BBCが米国事変を「テロ」呼ばわりしないことについての覚悟や反響を伝えたものです。
■■■■@■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
World Service will not call US attacks terrorism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,593647,00.html
Matt Wells
Thursday November 15, 2001
The GuardianThe BBC World Service has taken a policy decision not to describe the attacks on the US as "terrorism".
Mark Damazer, the BBC's deputy director of news, said the service would loseits reputation for impartiality around the world if it were seen to use such a subjective term.
While guests and contributors to World Service programmes may describe the deliberate flying of jet planes into the World Trade Centre as acts of terror, news correspondents use more neutral terms such as "attack".
Mr Damazer, speaking in a debate about television coverage of September 11at the Newsworld conference in Barcelona, insisted the decision was notintended 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 regardit as terrorism. Describing it as such could downgrade your status as an impartial and independent broadcaster."
Because of its reputation for impartiality, the World Service has to becareful about its use of language. It does not usually describe IRA attacksas terrorism, because they may not be seen as such in a world context.
John Renner, commissioning editor for news programmes at the World Service,said after the debate yesterday that while the attacks on New York and Washington had put a strain on the policy, it had to be maintained.
US networks came in for particular criticism. Tony Burman, executivedirector at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, said the US coverage ofthe crisis had failed to take account of the international perspective:
"It's depressing to see the jingoism which is lamentably part of the cultureand spirit of the coverage." He said US networks regarded the attacks on Afghanistan as a football match with Washington as the home team.
Comparing BBC World coverage of the war with that of the US networks, hesaid they appeared to describe "two different wars".
Bill Wheatley, the vice-president of NBC, in a satellite link from New York,rejected the charge of jingoism, but said: "It's true that US networks are focusing on the attempt to defeat the Taliban and apprehend Osama Bin Laden, but I don't think we've been pulling punches in terms of the difficulties of the war effort and the problems of US foreign policy."
He acknowledged that the Qatar-based news channel al-Jazeera was not always regarded as a trusted source, despite its insistence of impartiality.
"Because they have been given special status in Kabul we feel it's correct that our viewers know that they have that special access."
==================================
World Service helps BBC to enjoy a great war
By James Harding, Media Editor, in London
Published: November 15 2001 18:25 |
Last Updated: November 15 2001 18:27While the US has deployed the B52 bomber to pound Afghanistan with weeks of air strikes, the UK's main contribution to the rout of the Taliban has arguably been a hearts-and-minds bombardment by the BBC Pashto and Persianservice.
With roughly 70 per cent of the Afghan population said to tune in regularly to the local language radio broadcasts, the BBC World Service has penetrated deeper into Taliban territory than the British army special forces.
On Thursday, the BBC's central role in the conflict was underlined by theTaliban leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar. The one-eyed cleric called the BBC out of the blue on Tuesday night, a couple of days after his followers had fled Kabul, to say he wanted to give an interview to address both the Afghan people and his enemies.
Speaking via an intermediary on a walkie-talkie, Mullah Omar warned the West that the "destruction of America...will happen within a short period oftime." Later in the same day, the BBC broadcast in Pashto an interview with Dick Cheney, the the US vice-president, who promised a long, but ultimatelysuccessful war on terrorism.
The BBC World Service, which is funded by the UK foreign office, has nearly doubled its Pashto and Persian broadcasts since September 11, raising transmission hours from 6 to 11 hours a day.
Other state-funded international broadcasters, such as the Voice of America and Germany's Deutsche Welle, have also poured more resources into local language transmissions targetted at Afghanistan and its neighbours.
But the BBC has built up a lead among Pashto and Persian listeners thanks to years of broadcasting, a reputation for impartial news and, as almost any Afghan will tell you, an unmissable soap opera. Naway Kor, Naway Jwand - New Home, New Life - is a radio soap opera set in the fictitious village of Bar Killi.
Broadcast three days a week for 15 minutes in the morning and repeated at night, correspondents in Afghanistan have reported back that the programme has wedded Afghan listeners to the BBC.
"It is as popular as any soap opera in the West," says Baqer Moin, head of the BBC Pashto and Persian service. "When one of the characters died, they held services for him in the mosques."
As with all other information from Afghanistan, the audience numbers are fuzzy.
Nawaz Kor is broadcast both in Pashto for the predominantly - Pashtun speaking south of Afghanistan and in Persian - otherwise known as Dari in Afghanistan, Farsi in Iran and Tajik in Tajikistan - to an estimated 35 m listeners a week.
Beyond the anecdotal reports that the BBC is the most widely listened-to radio service in Afghanistan, the United Nations conducted a listener survey nearly two years ago which showed 72 per cent of household heads regularly listened to the BBC Pashto service.
In the television world, the Al Jazeera network, based in Qatar, has been the media meeting-point for both sides to put their arguments. In radio, ithas been the BBC.
"Political leaders and military commanders in Afghanistan are phoning us because they want to get their message through to the people of Afghanistan," says Mr Moin. "They think we are the best medium."
To its stalwart supporters, who were called to defend the World Service when people in the early 1990s asked what purpose it would serve after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the Afghanistan conflict has provided a timely reminder that the World Service offers the British government an immeasurable return on its investment.
The UK government provides L182m annual grant-in-aid to fund the World Service. The Pashtun and Persian service costs about L4m a year.
Mark Byford, director of the BBC World Service, says: "At the start of a new century, the World Service's impact and importance is as great, if not greater, than ever." Mr Byford has asked the government for an extra L4m to fund the World Service this year and, with the government funding for 2003-2006 to be decided in the next six months, he is hoping the BBC's role in the war will not be lost on the Foreign Office.
The government's interest in the World Service extends beyond broadcasting. The BBC also operates a monitoring service in the English country town of Caversham, west of London, where a bunch of linguists listen, watch, read and report back on broadcasts and transmissions from around the world. Their reports are fed into government intelligence as well as BBC news gathering. But the difficult trick for the BBC, as with the VOA, has been to maintain the government's financial support while shunning its attempts to interfere with editorial content.
Both the BBC and the VOA have had to face questions from politicians about airing incendiary comments from Taliban leaders and Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Phil Harding, director of English networks and news, says that so far there has been no government meddling. What there has been, though, is a queue of politicians willing to go on air.
"The list of guests reads like an international who's who," says Mr Harding, mentioning some of the recent interviewees: Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, King Abdullah of Jordan, Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.
At Bush House, the home of the BBC World Service, the broadcasters, editors and journalists often see themselves as the poor, but exotic and intellectual cousins of the media celebrities in the main BBC buildings across London. But the mood has been buoyed not just by the stream of high-profile interviewees. They like to boast high-profile listeners, too.
When a visitor to Kinshasa stopped in a few weeks ago on Laurent Kabila, it was reported back at Bush House that he found the president of the Congo clocking into the BBC World Service website to catch up on the latest post-September 11 developments.