Sunday, July 17, 2005
Man Bites Dog!!!! Media uses the term "terrorist" when not warranted.
When is a terrorist not a terrorist?
Well, when he fires a precision shot at an armed, uniformed U.S. service member in a theater of war.
Far be it from me to come to the rhetorical aid of the Iraq insurgency. But the problem is that the Army Times editors fail to grasp the difference between a terrorist and a garden-variety guerrilla who confines his attacks to military targets.
Aside from generally sabatoging the democratic reforms of the Iraqi people, unless this sniper is otherwise implicated in true terror attacks against innocent noncombatants, this sniper has done nothing wrong (except blow the shot) and does not deserve the label "terrorist."
When the media - the guard-dogs of political language - fail to draw a distinction - when they carelessly blur the difference between a true terrorist and one who attacks a legitimate military target with measured and proportionate force, they mislead and confuse the reader, and they lend rhetorical ammunition to anti-democratic forces, who thrive on - who RELY ON - the blurring of the line between insurgents and terrorists.
The fact is, they would like nothing more than for the term "terrorist" to be watered down, because they want to turn the term "terrorist," ju-jitsu style - against the U.S. military and pro-democratic forces. They want to hoodwink the media into calling U.S. snipers "terrorists," too, as well as the Israeli sniper whose handiwork is highlighted below.
Really, they want to turn all U.S. servicemen and women into "terrorists," so they can rail on about indicting Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld for "war crimes."
Yes, they look like fools in the West. And they are. But their arguments have a certain cache among the fools in the middle east who watch them, and take encouragement from them.
The Army Times was wrong to play into this idea. Someone who targets and terrorizes noncombatants is a terrorist. Someone who confines his attacks to armed, uniformed servicemen is not.
Editors, update your stylebooks. It's not that complicated.
Splash, out
Jason
Well, when he fires a precision shot at an armed, uniformed U.S. service member in a theater of war.
During a routine patrol in Baghdad June 2, Army Pfc. Stephen Tschiderer, a medic, was shot in the chest by an enemy sniper, hiding in a van just 75 yards away. The incident was filmed by the insurgents.
Tschiderer, with E Troop, 101st “Saber” Cavalry Division, attached to 3rd Battalion, 156th Infantry Regiment, 256th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, was knocked to the ground from the impact, but he popped right back up, took cover and located the enemy’s position.
After tracking down the now-wounded sniper with a team from B Company, 4th Battalion, 1st Iraqi Army Brigade, Tschiderer secured the terrorist with a pair of handcuffs and gave medical aid to the terrorist who’d tried to kill him just minutes before
Far be it from me to come to the rhetorical aid of the Iraq insurgency. But the problem is that the Army Times editors fail to grasp the difference between a terrorist and a garden-variety guerrilla who confines his attacks to military targets.
Aside from generally sabatoging the democratic reforms of the Iraqi people, unless this sniper is otherwise implicated in true terror attacks against innocent noncombatants, this sniper has done nothing wrong (except blow the shot) and does not deserve the label "terrorist."
When the media - the guard-dogs of political language - fail to draw a distinction - when they carelessly blur the difference between a true terrorist and one who attacks a legitimate military target with measured and proportionate force, they mislead and confuse the reader, and they lend rhetorical ammunition to anti-democratic forces, who thrive on - who RELY ON - the blurring of the line between insurgents and terrorists.
The fact is, they would like nothing more than for the term "terrorist" to be watered down, because they want to turn the term "terrorist," ju-jitsu style - against the U.S. military and pro-democratic forces. They want to hoodwink the media into calling U.S. snipers "terrorists," too, as well as the Israeli sniper whose handiwork is highlighted below.
Really, they want to turn all U.S. servicemen and women into "terrorists," so they can rail on about indicting Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld for "war crimes."
Yes, they look like fools in the West. And they are. But their arguments have a certain cache among the fools in the middle east who watch them, and take encouragement from them.
The Army Times was wrong to play into this idea. Someone who targets and terrorizes noncombatants is a terrorist. Someone who confines his attacks to armed, uniformed servicemen is not.
Editors, update your stylebooks. It's not that complicated.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
I have an old flag and I want to learn the best way to store it. I have been looking for info on the blogs and found your post. I enjoyed reading you info...Thanks...flags
# posted by 
: 11:37 AM
: 11:37 AM
I am finally using the Internet to allow people to buy directly from my factory. I have never sold direct before and I should be able to save people a lot of money. I am now looking through the net for some content ideas for my site. I think however I am just going to set-up a blog to add content. I came to this decision after reading your post.
Thanks�flag trivia
Post a Comment
Thanks�flag trivia
# posted by : 8:37 PM
: 8:37 PM
