« cushy job, my ass | Main | i've got a bad feeling about this »

when blogs talk, someone listens?

insurge.jpgEarlier this week, both Josh Marshall and Atrios called for the media to stop calling members of the Iraqi resistance terrorists.

"...those who attack US military targets in Iraq should be called guerillas or insurgents ."

Was Newsday listening?

Anyhow, I still think they should be called terrorists. Insurgents generally rise up against their own government. And I just don't like the word guerrillas . I always spell it wrong.

Magilla, Magilla guerilla for sale....

Comments

Is "wankers with a bad attitude" any easier?

But "blood-spilling, murderous purpetrator" won't fit in a headline! A terrorist by any other name is still a terrorist. People are worried about semantics when innocent people are dying? Sheesh.

How about "enemies of the Iraqi people?" Or how about "the Democrats best friend?" I know, I know. Awfully harsh.

"murdering douchebags" rolls off the tongue well.

Amazing. You can't even call a spade a spade anymore, even when the shovel in question is a feyahadeen psychopath who is committed to restoring the rule of Stalin's last living admirer by indiscriminately killing soldiers and civilians alike.

What the farking fark. Are Mssrs. Marshall and Artois afraid that by calling a terrorist a terrorist, we'll hurt their feelings, thereby encouraging more acts of violence?

Has the whole world gone crazy?

Jesus...u got comment on everything. Hope you voted already today.

FYI..Newsday is one of the fairest papers IN NYC metro area

i like 'guerilla' better because when i hear george bush say 'terrorist' it always sounds like 'tourist', and then i'm like 'waz up with the damn tourists? why the hell are they even over there!'

"What the farking fark. Are Mssrs. Marshall and Artois afraid that by calling a terrorist a terrorist, we'll hurt their feelings, thereby encouraging more acts of violence?"

What a useless comment. Even if you disagree with them, disagree with their actual reasons, not just some made-up malarky you'd like to attribute to them.

Here, e.g., is JMM's reason: "People who kill soldiers are not, at least not by definition, ‘terrorists’. They’re guerillas or insurgents. This isn’t a matter of cutting them slack, but one of precision. And precision is required to know what we’re doing, what we’re trying to do, and how we can get from clarifying what our goals are to finding effective means to pursue their implementation."

It would help if people would stop smoking the powerful crackpipe of high moral dudgeon, and try to think about what's going on over there.

I would have gone there Alfredo,but I can never spell that right either.Douche.Bag.there we go.

JW - "People who kill soldiers are not, at least not by definition, ‘terrorists’

But people who deliberately target the Red Cross, teenagers on their way to school and UN employees, are by definition, terrorists.

A terrorist act is like sh*t – you can mix 1 part with 10 parts water, but in the end, you’ve got still got sh*t. Once you cross that line, it’s crossed.

Semantics are important because 'resistance fighters' seek to end oppression. Terrorists seek to establish it.

"People who kill soldiers are not, at least not by definition, ‘terrorists’. They’re guerillas or insurgents."

is incorrect. A more correct statement would be:

"Attacks on soldiers are not, at least not by definition, terrorist attacks. They're guerilla attacks."

Yes indeed. When I woke up today I didn't wonder how things had gone in Iraq while I slept, or whether Al Qaeda scuba divers had put charges on the Brooklyn Bridge, or whether Hamas had blown up a day-care center in Haifa, or Iran had fooled the IEAA again, or any other irrelevant little detail. I booted up the computer, stroked my chin, and wondered about the real issue of the day: proper nomenclature for Ba'athholes who want to blow up Red Cross facilties.

"Ba'athholes." I like it.

I got this from Buzz Machine. UN definition of terrorist:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

As Jeff says, it fits the Iraqis like a glove.

Ba'athholes it is. I like it.

JW - Nope. Sorry. Wrong.

These "insurgents" have attacked and killed Red Cross workers, as well as other civilians. They are, by their very nature and actions, terrorists.

The fact that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that these animals, who intentionally kill the innocent, are terrorists speaks volumes about you.

How about freedom fighters? Oh, wait - that was the Contras.

I would prefer to call these assholes "the late", but then I'm just a bloodthirsty warmonger.

"How about freedom fighters? Oh, wait - that was the Contras."

Was this supposed to be mockingly ironic? Considering how the Sandinistas held sham elections, persecuted Jews, Indians, and Catholic clergy, and how they gave authority to Cuban intelligence officials to operate in Nicaragua, I'd say that the Contras were freedom fighters.

Gregory, nowhere does JW say what you attribute to him. He's quoting Josh Marshall talking about the attacks on soldiers.

At least get the facts straight before attacking someone.

A lot of people here seem to lump all Iraqui's together and label them all terrorists or insurgents or whatever. A lot of US troops are doing the same, which is perhaps understandfable in the circumstances but not helpful. Fact is that the people shooting the charity workers or bombing civilians aren't necessarily the same ones as who are shooting US sodiers - an occupying force. The distinction is important.

i dont like the idea of people invading another country and blame if 'insurgents' appear. what do they expect? a red carpet rolled out and cheerleaders with pom poms?