[PREV - TIPS_FOR_T] [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 misses the real
problem with the common usage.
Terrorists are people who target Or pick a more literal
innocent, civilian populations, definition, if you like:
correct? So that means you "Shock and Awe" --
should use the word to describe doesn't that sound like
Israel's assault on Lebanon, an attempt at inducing
right? terror?
Are you not allowed to
call them terrorists
because:
o They're killing *lots* of
civilians and terrorists (But you'd think the 9/11
are pipsqueaks who only bodycount was high enough
kill by the dozens. to qualify Osama Bin Laden
as a statesman.)
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,
"New York Review of Books"
[ref]
--------
[NEXT - PROFILE_OF_STUPIDITY]