>criminal - so the killers from beslan have the same context as a thief or
>mugger?
Yes, in a very general sense. If you break the law you are technically a criminal. Doesn't matter what the severity is, in a very general sense.
>Rebel - Brings thoughts of star wars and the american revolution. No connection to savage killings of innocents.
The Contra Rebels - killed thousands of civilians.
And FWIW the "Rebels" were only the good guys from the perspective of the camera. The Deathstar contracters probably weren't too happy with them.
I guess it's a perspective thing.
>Gunmen - A cop has a gun. So does a criminal. Anyone with a gun or who shoots a gun is a gunman.
No, a police officer is legally sanctioned to possess and if necessary use a firearm in the performance of his duty. "Cops" are governed by strict rules and regulations about the discharge of said firearm as well. Not the same thing as a gunman at all.
>bomber - "open the bomb bay doors". OK, this is better, but very specific.
>Was beslan a bombing incident?
There were apparently bombs in the school so in a sense, yes.
>And the best is militant. This word is used to make a terrorist look
>legitimate.
>He's a militant fighting for a cause. He's a militant against a
>government. Yes,
>he savagely massacred a school/bus load of children, but it's all for the
>cause.
And whether you agree with his cause or not, that does indeed describe the terrorists at Beslan. I do not believe that anyone could find what they did just or right, no matter what the root "cause." Much as I cannot fathom what the Russian govt was thinking when they rounded up family members of current and former Chechen "seperatist" leaders and held them in "protective custody" shortly after the incident at Beslan began. It seems some were beaten and mistreated while in "protective custody." That they were all released at the end of the incident is a good thing, but what was the true purpose of rounding them up in the first place? Bargaining chips?
>Welcome to moral legitimacy as assigned by the media.
>The problem is two fold. The first is that the media is running scared of
>certain factions in the world and if they report too negatively about
>those
>factions, trouble. The quote in the article about never calling
>palestinian
>terrorism by the term terrorism is exactly this case. The second is that
>the
>media has this insane notion that they are the arbitrator of what is right,
>moral or whatever. No. They exist to report the news. period, end of story. Too
>many times I read an article where the newspaper in question decides to put
>their own moral spin on something or ignore the facts in order to make a better
>story. This is the overwhelming case when it comes to savage terrorist scum.
>They don't want to look into the abyss. They don't want to see the evil that men
>do, so they call it something else. Something to lessen the impact. Something to
>legitimize the event. In many cases, they even descend to moral equivilism.
Shouldn't happen, but it does. This is not new. Didn't Hearst say, "Get me pictures and I'll give you your war" or something similar in reference to Cuba? That was before the turn of the last century.
>"Well, it was russia's own fault for the event because of chechnia" Like
>the kids in the school have anything to do with it.
I'd like to see the source of this quote. This reporter has an editor that needs to seriously reconsider his career.
>Until I really started to read the news, I never knew what the term
>liberal
>meant and never thought that I wasn't one. There is right and wrong in the
>world
>and the media seems to want to hide this from us. Well, most media. We do
>have
>islands of sanity here and there like this piece:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/opinion/07brooks.html?hp
>
>As for context, the original article has links.
A good article, but this makes me wonder, why were you not reading news critically before and what made you change your mind/habits?
will
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
