I know I’m hardly the first to say this, but it bears repeating: When you deliberately murder civilians, you are no longer a “militant” or an “insurgent”; you are a terrorist. It’s that simple. Whatever other claims you may have to legitimacy are overridden by the calculated decision to target innocents in an effort to affect policy by inspiring fear. There is no grey area here. It doesn’t matter if your cause is just and your grievances are real. People who kill civilians are terrorists, murderers, common thugs; they do not deserve the respect conferred by more neutral terms. The media would do well to [re-]learn this distinction. Yes, the term has been overused of late; but that’s no excuse for failing to apply it to those who unambigously meet the definition.
4 Comments
Comments are closed.
Amen.
Is there a way to amplify this post for you? Everyone needs to hear it.
I’m torn on this one.
On one hand, any violent act intended to influence (foreign or domestic)government policy or public opinion…using fear to force your views on others…
Sick and wrong.
I refuse to use the term terrorist anymore. When I was growing up, a terrorist was a religious militant that was bent on killing anyone of the other faith…having little to do with secular politics. The IRA, the PLO…you get the idea.
I much prefer the term ‘violent fucktard with extreme lack of diplomacy who needs a bullet where there should have been a brain’. Fucktard will have to do though.
On the other hand, these days there seems to be a huge gray area between innocent civilian and deep cover military…special psy-ops…sleeper cells. Whatever we’re calling it this week.
It’s getting harder to make the call. Unless I know you personally, I don’t have an opinion.
I refuse to use the term terrorist anymore. When I was growing up, a terrorist was a religious militant that was bent on killing anyone of the other faith…having little to do with secular politics. The IRA, the PLO…you get the idea.
But that’s not what the IRA was doing… nor the PLO, either. Both were using terror to attempt to influence policy. Both defined themselves as freedom-fighters. The IRA even made some attempt to constrain their attacks to political and military targets. In fact, I’d say the change has been the reverse of what you say: today we see far more terrorism inspired as much or more by the killing of infidels as by political aspirations. Maybe it’s true that terrorism, defined as the use of terror to affect some change in foreign or domestic policy, is perhaps less applicable to these religion-inspired attacks than plain old “murder”.
On the other hand, these days there seems to be a huge gray area between innocent civilian and deep cover military…special psy-ops…sleeper cells.
I’m afraid you’ve lost me there. Care to elaborate?
Gray area
The one story that sticks with me is that of Nick Berg.
Here’s the details from CNN.
The official story is that Nick Berg was communications tech; that he started his own company and was in Iraq as a civilian contractor. He just has too many coincidental interactions with terrorist suspects, Iraqi police, the FBI, possibly ties to Mossad as well. So was he an al-Qa’ida plant?…an FBI agent?…a Mossad agent?…a spook of some sort I would guess…maybe even profiteering, working both sides?
Was he a civilian who pushed too far, an agent or informant? Where does military end and civilian begin here? Hell, even according to our own government, the people we’re fighting against are not ‘military’ as defined by the Geneva Convention…but not ‘civilian’ either.
There have been a few other civilian murders that seemed suspect at the time. If I can find more details for those I will post them.