[PREV - TWISTED_PATHS] [TOP]
TERRORISM
December 4, 2006
Daniel Okrent boldly announced that
he thinks that the New York Times has New York Times, March 6, 2005
been too timid about using the word "The War of the Words:
"terrorist" in, say, talking about a A Dispatch From the Front Lines"
PLO bombing that kills a bunch of
civilians.
This completely missed the real
problem with the common use of
the word. Terrorists are people Or pick a more literal
who target innocent, civilian definition, if you like:
populations, correct? So that "Shock and Awe" --
means you should use the word doesn't that sound like
to describe Israel's assault an attempt at inducing
on Lebanon, right? terror?
Are you not allowed to
call them terrorists
because:
o They're killing *lots* of civilians
and terrorists are pipsqueaks who
only kill by the dozens.
o They're doing it with US
weapons.
o They claim they're not targeting
civilians.
(Somewhere or other in THE_TRUE_FISK
the thousand Lebanese
dead, there may be a
few members of Hezbollah.)
"Yet the fact that Hezbollah fighters
mingled with the civilian population in
some places does not mean that all attacks
on civilians were justified. If that were
the case, it might also be argued that
attacks on Israeli cafés and buses are
justified because Israeli soldiers
patronize cafés and ride buses. Such a
stance would clearly be monstrous."
-- Aryeh Neier
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19500
--------
[NEXT - THE_AUTUMNAL_WEB]