What's wrong with "Terrorists?"

[DaWhim]

* Assailants - National Public Radio.
* Attackers ? the Economist.
* Bombers ? the Guardian.
* Captors ? the Associated Press.
* Commandos ? Agence France-Presse refers to the terrorists both as "membres du commando" and "commando."
* Criminals - the Times (London).
* Extremists ? United Press International.
* Fighters ? the Washington Post.
* Group ? the Australian.
* Guerrillas: in a New York Post editorial.
* Gunmen ? Reuters.
* Hostage-takers - the Los Angeles Times.
* Insurgents ? in a New York Times headline.
* Kidnappers ? the Observer (London).
* Militants ? the Chicago Tribune.
* Perpetrators ? the New York Times.
* Radicals ? the BBC.
* Rebels ? in a Sydney Morning Herald headline.
* Separatists ? the Christian Science Monitor.
* Activists ? the Pakistan Times.

the media just don't like calling them terrorists

 

[TitanDiddly]

It's an anti-buzzword.

 

[MrCodeDude]

Terrorists Win!

 

[Lyfer]

What's wrong with "Terrorists?"


Thats easy silly! They're all fvcking crazy! (What SANE person would do such crimes?)

 

[GroundZero]

religion

 

[BespinReactorShaft]

Is "fundamentalists" out of fashion as well? It was all the rage sometime during the 80's.

 

[n0cmonkey]

It all depends on your point of view.

 

[PanzerIV]

Where's "azzholes?" Seemed so obvious!

 

[Kibbo]

It's diffucult to define.

Although it is easy to call the 9/11 attacks terrorism, is it that easy to call an Chechen rebel who attacks a military target a terrorist? If the Chechens involved in in the school massacre (a clearly terrorist act) were accossiated with an organization 90% of whose activities are against militry targets, could the whole organization be called a terrorist organization? If so, couldn't any other organiztion that is primarily military who commits an act directed against civilians also by typified as a terrorist organization? There is no clear line, and so a responsible news source should try to stay out of the debate of what is and isn't terrorism. Thus, they use more general terms, in order to be sure to be correct.

 

[Coquito]

If you terrorize, you are a terrorist. Anything else is just denying the fact.

 

[0roo0roo]

i just don't know about the accuracy of your list. i wonder if they leave out info like if that term was only used once, or if its used with terrorist.

like the first on the list. i've heard them use the term terrorist plenty.

 

[DaWhim]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i just don't know about the accuracy of your list. i wonder if they leave out info like if that term was only used once, or if its used with terrorist.

like the first on the list. i've heard them use the term terrorist plenty.

I got my list here

 

[Snapster]

I think they just picked out certain keywords to create that list. Take the BBC on that list they sourced this report yet a further report here they use terrorism whilst on the same subject. It's not like the beeb always use 'Radicals' as an implicit substitute for the terrorist word. They've used that word plenty over the years.

 

[StageLeft]

Because PCism has paralyzed the media into a state where it's so sensitive about offending anybody or suffering a frivolous lawsuit that their ability to actually report the truth is now compromised.

 

[mugs]

Are you so simple-minded that you can't evaluate their actions on your own?

If anything, I think the term terrorist is overused.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: mugs
Are you so simple-minded that you can't evaluate their actions on your own?

If anything, I think the term terrorist is overused.

It's grossly overused in some arenas, and underused in others

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: mugs
Are you so simple-minded that you can't evaluate their actions on your own?

If anything, I think the term terrorist is overused.

It's grossly overused in some arenas, and underused in others

I think media outlets like Fox News, which appeal to less "sophisticated" viewers with their flashy graphics, dumbed down commentary, and overuse of buzzwords, definitely overuse the term terrorist to the point where people are surprised to not find it it so overused in other places.

I also think the anti-PC crowd will look for anything to declare as PC pandering. I was listening to O'Reilly's radio show the other day, and one of his callers insisted that referring to the Chechens as terrorists was being politically correct, because it leaves out the fact that they were Muslim fundamentalists (and some of them were arabs)!

And for the record, the Pakistan Times article that refers to them as "activists" also quotes 3 people referring to them as terrorists. If they were trying to be politically correct, would they have included those quotes?

Edit: The NY Times article that refers to them as "perpetrators" also refers to them as terrorists SEVEN times, both in quotes and not. Perpetrators, on the other hand, is used only once. "The brutality of the hostage-taking seemed almost a natural disaster - an outbreak of human savagery in which neither the perpetrators nor their motives were known." Yeah, they're really being politically correct there, making them seem like cuddly teddy bears. :roll:

 

[The Green Bean]

I can't understand why people call insurgents fighting in IRAQ are called terrorists. first the USA occupies a country and then lablels who ever fights back terrorists? More like freedom fighters. IRAQ is not USA's so attacks there should not be should not be considered terrororist activity. Iraqis have every right to fight back to an oppressive occupier. Besides it is those US military men that are getting killed.

When Saddam put down the shiite mutiny, americans regarded it as illegal. Now when america tries to put down a mutiny in a land which it has no right to control, it calls it a right to defend themselves. Kill one or kill 1000s; it is still murder. And just because they dont use chemical wepons doesn't make them right.

I would guess that atleast 100, 000 civillians would have been killed since america's war on terror. What right does america have to kill 100, 000 innocent people just to avenge the death of 3000 odd americans? All this without real proof who made the condemnable attacks on September 11 2001. Sounds pretty unfair to me.