« after these messages | Main | would you like to play a game? »

semantics 101

semantics 101

Note to CNN:

Please know the difference between militant(as in "Israeli forces shot and killed a top Islamic militant early Saturday after he opened fire on them in the old city of Jenin..") and terrorist.

mil·i·tant : n. A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.

ter·ror·ist: n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism

ter·ror·ism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Now, let's reword the sentence from the above mentioned story:

"Israeli forces shot and killed a top Islamic terrorist early Saturday after he opened fire on them in the old city of Jenin.."

Yes, much better. Any questions? No?

Good.

Posted by on November 9, 2002 04:42 PM |

Comments

At least they don't call them "freedom fighters."

Posted by: Beaker | November 9, 2002 05:13 PM

This get me ranting...
They're almost as bad as Reuters. Unless it's a quote from someone, they never use the word terrorist when talking about islamothugs. It's surprising that they even used the word Islamic to describe him - usually they just say "Palestinian."

Same with the Chechens - the media calls them rebels, separatists, guerrillas, militants...pisses me off. They blow up apartment buildings, they attack hospitals and theaters and threaten to kill hundreds of hostages - THEY ARE TERRORISTS.
Of course, payback's a bitch. I just read this story: Masked men blow up home of Moscow hostage-taker. Note to self: don't piss off the Russians.

Back to the CNN story - talk about slant. I'd suggest one more rewording:

A top Islamic terrorist opened fire on Israeli Defense Forces in the old city of Jenin early Saturday, the IDF members defended themselves and killed the terrorist.."

Posted by: iamcatman | November 9, 2002 05:58 PM

I know it's incredible ...... and lately I notice that "militant" is being further watered down to "activist". An activist to me is like someone who's way too involved with his chess club in Junior High. Actually that's a good question ....What will CNN be calling terrorists two years (or another intifada, whichever comes first) from now ?

Posted by: ekmek | November 9, 2002 06:37 PM

iamcatman:
I'll make my own note to the Islamist terrorists: "Please piss off the Russians".

Posted by: Kathy K | November 9, 2002 07:25 PM

i'm so proud of you. you're really coming along nicely. :)

Posted by: tanya | November 9, 2002 07:45 PM

ummm ... I have no love for Hamas, but I'm going to disagree with this. Someone who shoots at SOLDIERS during a declared war or occupation is correctly called a guerrilla or partisan, not a terrorist. I don't much care for "militant", however -- it's such a weasel-word.

If the target is CIVILIANS, then they are terrorists, regardless of the state of war or peace. Muddying these waters by calling all armed attacks "terrorism" does no good, no matter how much you dispise the group involved.

During a war, members of the military are legitimate targets. Civilians are not. Since the situation in the West Bank and Gaza is legally an armed occupation, it is unreasonable to expect soldiers to be considered non-combatants. So I would argue with the quoted definition as follows:

ter·ror·ism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against CIVILIANS or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Posted by: Kevin | November 10, 2002 12:14 AM

last time I looked Jenin was an illegally occupied territory, and this guy was firing at the occupying forces - seems like a stae of war to me, so militant is an appropriate way to phrase it.
Suicide bombers are terrorists, no argument there. But Sharon is just as much a terrorist as Arafat.

Posted by: g | November 10, 2002 03:39 AM

Kevin, you're splitting hairs over semantics. These islamothugs routinely, and deliberately, target and blow up innocent women and children. It doesn't matter that, on this particular day, this one decided to have it out with IDF soldiers instead. They don't get to switch hats and be a terrorist one day and a militant the next. As for the so-called "occupation," that's a whole nother can o'worms and I should have been in bed hours ago...

Respectfully,
iamcatman

Posted by: iamcatman | November 10, 2002 04:03 AM

I really should just go to bed.

Ok then, "occupied" territories. Do I need to go into detail as to how they became "occupied?" Could it have something to do with the fact that Israel was attacked by her non-democratic (ie., totalitarian) neighbors? And that Israel "occupied" these territories while defending from these attacks. And by the way, the territories haven't been continuously "occupied." Many times Israeli forces have pulled out of these areas hoping for peace. What happens when they do? More murder-suicide bombings is what happens.

This time I'm going to bed for real...good thing it's Sunday and I can sleep all day.

Posted by: iamcatman | November 10, 2002 04:23 AM

eek, since when did they let republicans use the internet?

Posted by: joseph | November 10, 2002 08:57 PM

iamcatman --

Semantics, yes. I confess. But when dictionary entries are involved, it does tend to get semantical, no?

As to your point that these particular attackers might just have well blown up a school bus, had such been handy, I can't argue the point except to say they didn't.

The Palestinian people should reflect (should actually have reflected 20 years ago) on the difference between their tactics (and their failure) and those of the ANC, which succeeded in its goals. Why? Because the ANC with few exceptions, kept their attacks to legitimate targets, as a matter of policy. This allowed their opponents to eventually deal with them. No one could possibly deal with Hamas or much of the current PLO.

There will be no peace in the West Bank, nor any Paelstinian state until the Palestinians themselves liquidate the thugs they have over them. I'm not holding my breath, but the alternatives are not pleasant either. Someday someone gets the Bomb and the whole Middle East dies.

But I just hate to see the word "terrorist" bandied about to include those not actually committing terrorist acts. Or "rebels" for those that are.

Posted by: Kevin | November 11, 2002 12:55 PM

(latest attacks)

Killing civilians inside Israel proper? Doesn't matter what you believe on the "issues"

T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S

preferably DEAD terrorists

Posted by: Kevin | November 11, 2002 02:08 PM