4 ms·

> An attack of revenge, maybe against the military or police forces, would be what's expected. Sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

by Unosolo 13y ago

> An attack of revenge, maybe against the military or police forces, would be what's expected. Sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis Ironically Ingush and Chechen islamic terrorists are persistently referred to as "rebels" and "separatists" by Western media, BBC which is perceived as more "independent" news outlet didn't utter once word "terrorist" even during the coverage of the heinous terror attack against children. People committing acts of terror are terrorists regardless of their aims.

asb 13y ago
The BBC tries to avoid terms like 'terrorist' http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/dec/16/terrorism.broadcasting http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/dec/16/terrorism.broadc...
- arethuza 13y ago
  "The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them." That actually sounds pretty sensible to me. These guys probably weren't part of some organisation that is trying to achieve political goals through acts of terrorism (e.g. like the IRA) - labelling a pair of nutters as "terrorists" really doesn't achieve very much in terms of news reporting or public understanding.
  - EliRivers 13y ago
    WMD charges don't help either. A pipe-bomb has been considered a WMD for a decade now. The term has been cheapened so much some schools ban the term as useless and carrying almost no information.
    - theorique 13y ago
      Well, it explains why we invaded Iraq after the fact. If a mere pipe bomb or IED is considered WMD, then Iraq was FULL of them. Chemical or biological weapons, not so much.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      A pipe bomb has been legally considered WMD for almost two decades now. They didn't change the meaning for 9/11 or Iraq.
    - illuminate 13y ago
      "The term has been cheapened" The solution here is to stop thinking that your definition has anything to do with the long-time legal definition of WMD.

by Unosolo 13y ago

asb 13y ago

The BBC tries to avoid terms like 'terrorist' http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/dec/16/terrorism.broadcasting http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/dec/16/terrorism.broadc...

arethuza 13y ago
"The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them." That actually sounds pretty sensible to me. These guys probably weren't part of some organisation that is trying to achieve political goals through acts of terrorism (e.g. like the IRA) - labelling a pair of nutters as "terrorists" really doesn't achieve very much in terms of news reporting or public understanding.
- EliRivers 13y ago
  WMD charges don't help either. A pipe-bomb has been considered a WMD for a decade now. The term has been cheapened so much some schools ban the term as useless and carrying almost no information.
  - theorique 13y ago
    Well, it explains why we invaded Iraq after the fact. If a mere pipe bomb or IED is considered WMD, then Iraq was FULL of them. Chemical or biological weapons, not so much.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    A pipe bomb has been legally considered WMD for almost two decades now. They didn't change the meaning for 9/11 or Iraq.
  - illuminate 13y ago
    "The term has been cheapened" The solution here is to stop thinking that your definition has anything to do with the long-time legal definition of WMD.