I’m looking for something.

Can you guess what?

Israel buries Mumbai attack dead“Six Jews died at the centre, which was one of several places targeted in the attacks that left 188 people dead.”

“She [Sandra Samuel, Moshe Holtzberg’s nanny] hid in a cupboard when the centre was attacked, but emerged to rescue the child after his parents were killed.”

“The Chabad centre was stormed on Wednesday evening by armed militants who seized hostages and fought a gun battle with Indian commandos.

Indian forces eventually regained control of the centre, killing several gunmen, but six of the hostages were found dead.”

Officials quit over India attacks (An earlier headline, preserved in the header, was “Troops battle to end Mumbai seige.) “Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, had been killed alongside his wife, Rivka.”

Israel awaits Mumbai attack dead “The organisation confirmed that Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, had been killed alongside his wife, Rivka. Their two-year-old son survived.”

Mumbai victims from all walks of life “Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, and his wife Rivkah, 28, were among six Jews killed in the Mumbai attacks. They were found dead at the Jewish cultural centre, known as Nariman House, which was one of the gunmen’s key targets.”

Officials quit over India attacks (Has the header “Police declare Mumbai seige over”, and seems to be a later version of the second story listed.) “The organisation confirmed that Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, had been killed alongside his wife, Rivka.”

Tense times for Mumbai’s Jews “Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivkah, were among the six people who died in the attack at Nariman House. “

As it happened: Mumbai attacks 27 Nov – contains references to the Holtzbergs being held hostage.

As it happened: Mumbai attacks – 28 Nov “A Brooklyn-based rabbi and his wife were killed in the siege on the Nariman House Jewish centre, the Chabad-Lubavitch movement confirms. Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg were “the beloved directors of Chabad-Lubavitch of Mumbai”, it says.”

Jewish centre seized in Mumbai – contains a reference to the status of Rabbi Holtzberg being unknown at that time.

(Emphasis added in all cases.)

Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to I’m looking for something.

  1. The Beebinator says:

    u cant expect Al Beeb to say murder when they view the religion of peace as freedom fighters although what do u expect when Al Beeb has an “abnormally large number of … ethnic minorities” working for it


  2. Anonymous says:

    The word “murdered” carries with it moral baggage, which would distract the reader from an appreciation of the political complexities involved in deliberately killing unarmed civilians, and would also potentially limit our admiration for the much-praised audacity of the attacks.


  3. henryflower says:

    anon 2.18am was me – new browser. I would also add that “murdered” is one of those legally judgemental terms that the BBC studiously avoids using, like “war crimes”, or “illegal settlement”.


  4. Anat (Israel) says:

    Ah, the delights of the passive voice! No perpetrator, at least not a known one.

    My favourite is ‘found dead’. What a mystery! Cause unknown.


  5. AndrewSouthLondon says:

    The use of “killed” – as though they had died accidentally in a car crash, or “died” as in died of an overdose, is morally repugnant. There is no more apprpriate word than “murder”

    One assumes there are written BBC guidelines on the use of such language, that are available to public inspection and accountability? Or are we not trusted to know how we are lied to.


  6. NotaSheep says:

    Any chance of the BBC proving they are not biased against Israel by releasing the Balen Report?


  7. Bryan says:

    The BBC did its level best to portray the hostages as caught in the crossfire with nobody to blame for their deaths. But it was established that the Jewish hostages and others had been tied up and tortured by those Islamic barbarians before they murdered them. According to other reports, doctors at a Mumbai hospital were shaken by the sight of the victims.

    I don’t believe I heard or saw that being reported anywhere on the BBC. And on the World Service they were calling the terrorists young men and determined gunmen. The BBC has become a terror-friendly propaganda outfit.


    Yes, they do have guidelines available:


    If the BBC were honest it would just state that it sympathises with the terrorists and their ’cause’ and that all the apparent agonising over ‘guidelines’ is just bluff and bullsh*t.


  8. Boy Blue says:

    The BBC once again sanitising the mass murder of kafirs.

    ‘Social Cohesion’ demands that we, the non-Islamic majority in this country, are kept in ignorance as much as possible about Islam and its global aims.


  9. Jonathan Boyd Hunt says:


    This post of yours is probably the most important I’ve set eyes on • because of what it says in one single post about the BBC’s institutional news reporting standards.

    In my research of the “Neil Hamilton cash for questions affair” I came across the science of “statement analysis” • the analysis of language patterns to detect lies and deception, and the concealment of truths • as used extensively by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies around the world.

    In your post you have certainly analysed the BBC’s reports with the same eyes of a “statement analysis” expert; but, no doubt, because you don’t claim to be such a practitioner and are perhaps even unaware of the practise, you don’t draw any conclusions.

    You should do so • after first digesting this hugely insightful, highly quotable interview with Gary Meaker of South African security company GriffithsReid, in an article entitled: Statement analysis takes lie detection to a higher level. If you were to insert extracts from Gary Meaker’s various maxims into your post it would then become very powerful indeed.

    Try it. And then consider renaming your post “Statement analysis takes the BBC’s lie detection to a higher level.” Or something like.


  10. Jonathan Boyd Hunt says:

    That last sentence is badly worded. What I meant to say was:

    Try it. And then consider renaming your post “Statement analysis takes detection of the BBC’s lies to a higher level.” Or something like.


  11. Houdini says:

    I’ve noticed this for a long time from the BBC, and while the BBC is probably the worst, other media outlets are also guilty.

    Hmmmm, didn’t the Labour Government decree that there are no terrorists anymore but those who engaged in anti-islamic activities? Maybe they were not murdered or even killed, but placed in a state of anti-islamic torpor?


  12. Laban says:

    From the BBC language you’d think the deaths were an act of God. I hope it’s just a coincidence that their murderers probably see things the same way.


  13. Sue says:

    Slightly OT, but the epidemic of anti Israel vicars is a contagious disease. I blame the BBC for spreading the infection with its relentless campaign to delegitimise Israel and sanitise Islam.


    And this man who went all the way to Bethlehem already knowing what he wanted to see, then, under the guise of religion and Godliness, he sanctimoniously preached his politically ignorant and racially prejudiced interpretation, which in effect amounted to unadulterated antisemitic rhetoric.


    Yet at the same time we are treated to a few seasonal broadcasts that feature the 1930s, Kindertransport, Anne Frank style misery-memoir tales of injustice, hardship and tragedy.

    But while the BBC is fond of showing us the Jew as the underdog, dead, or at death’s door, they seem incapable of joining the dots between the continual drip drip drip of both their subtle and blatant antisemitic output and the possible consequences that make the gradually fading cries of ‘never again’ grow ever fainter.


  14. Greencoat says:

    Perhaps the BBC thinks the Mumbai victims died in their sleep?
    I hope a drone missile calls real soon on the bastards who planned these murders.


  15. John Bosworth says:


    This story and its reporting brings up a wider problem with BBC word usage. I would advise everyone to beware the PASSIVE VOICE in news reports. It allows murderers and criminals to escape blame. In the BBC universe, only victims matter – and victims do not include Jews.

    The “people were killed” school of journalism is also to be found in the 1970s-1990s reporting of IRA attacks. Remember how many people “were killed” when a bomb went of? The body “had been” mutilated. The victim “had been” tortured. The active verb in the sentence: “Irish terrorists MURDERED two British soldiers” was never to be found.

    But passive language is important. It gives us a good clue as to who the BBC and its anti-Israeli (code for anti-Jewish) staff regards as its friends and who it thinks are its enemies.


  16. Biodegradable says:

    Slaughtered would be an apt word to use and it avoids legal issues that the use of “murdered” could raise.


  17. David Preiser (USA) says:


    The word you’re looking for is torture.

    In case this isn’t a trusted news source for any lurking BBC employees or unaffiliated defenders of the indefensible, even your beloved Huffington Post is willing to admit the truth:

    Jews Tortured before Being Executed in Mumbai Attacks

    I hope any defenders of the indefensible will now at least admit to themselves that the BBC has an editorial policy which specifically abjures against evoking any sympathy for all Jews (the rabbi and his wife were from Brooklyn), as well as Israelis.


  18. AndrewSouthLondon says:

    Bryan: thank you for the link. Moral neutrality between victim and perpetrator set out here:

    BBC Guidelines: “We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper”, “insurgent, and “militant”. Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom” (continues in same vein)

    Clearly in Soham, Ian Huntley’s poor victims simply died. Mustn’t make moral judgements. This is Chompskys post-modernist absurdity. Who are we to judge? May be they had it coming. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Ammoral absurdity. God the BBC disgust me.


  19. Dick the Prick says:

    Golly gosh, those Jewwy type chaps seem intent on protecting their little plot what what? Well, Sebastian, that’s a jolly rum state of play. If only they followed my cousin Farquar’s example and paid them vast amounts of money to organize seditionary activities in their own locales then, by crivvens, that’d sort it out would it not?

    “Yes, boy, 2 large G&T’s and don’t spare the horses”.


  20. Biodegradable says:

    Terror is Terror


  21. Andy says:

    Jonathan Boyd Hunt

    Very interesting link. I particularly liked:

    “”A liar will give him or herself away not because they want to, but often because they have no choice,” he explains. “A person telling the truth is focussed on revealing information, whereas a person telling a lie is focused on hiding information, and patterns can be detected if you know what to look for.””

    Ring any bells?


  22. Andy says:

    … and “The out-of-place use of passive words or phrases are also sure signs of lies”


  23. Bryan says:


    Yes, they disgust me as well. It’s got to the point where they wont even accurately quote others who have used the word terrorist, but quote them as having said militant.


  24. Jonathan Boyd Hunt says:

    Andy | 14.12.08 – 10:27 pm:

    Ring any bells?

    Quite so! When you apply Meaker’s maxims to the BBC’s suppression of any important information, fact, or, as in my own case, an entire side of a major political controversy, it shows the BBC’s reporting up for what it is – a manifestation of institutional dishonesty – especially when seen in the light of the BBC’s claims to be a truth-seeking, fact-revealing organisation.

    Any impartial observer who is unaware or unconvinced that the BBC is inherently biased, would be bemused by the examples of the BBC’s reporting cited by Natalie in her post. They would end up asking themselves: “Just why is the BBC using such convoluted language in its reporting?”

    But by applying the tenets of statement analysis, such as the ones you quoted, all becomes clear: The BBC is a dishonest organisation which is focused on concealing information! I also liked this extract, where Meaker advises on what to look out for:

    “a person’s willingness to take ownership – or deny ownership – of a particular item or concept; the subconscious attributation of responsibility; and the use of passive language in describing events.”

    Insightful stuff indeed.