NY Times: Were Those Mumbai Folks Really Terrorists?
Only in the liberal MSM, and particularly the New York Times, can they have debates on what to call terrorists and whether they are actually terrorists
WHEN 10 young men in an inflatable lifeboat came ashore in Mumbai last month and went on a rampage with machine guns and grenades, taking hostages, setting fires and murdering men, women and children, they were initially described in The Times by many labels.
They were “militants,” “gunmen,” “attackers” and “assailants.” Their actions, which left bodies strewn in the city’s largest train station, five-star hotels, a Jewish center, a cafe and a hospital — were described as “coordinated terrorist attacks.” But the men themselves were not called terrorists.
Many readers could not understand it. “I am so offended as to why the NY Times and a number of other news organizations are calling the perpetrators ‘militants,’ ” wrote “Bill” in a comment posted on The Times’s Web site. “Murderers, or terrorists perhaps but militants? Is your PC going to get so absurd that you will refer to them as ‘freedom fighters?’ ”
The Grey Lady just can’t understand what all the kerfuffle is about. As Public Editor Clark Hoyt explains
The Mumbai terror attacks posed a familiar semantic issue for Times editors: what to call people who pursue political, religious, territorial, or unidentifiable goals through violence on civilians. Many readers want the newspaper, even on the news pages, to share their moral outrage — or their political views — by adopting the word terrorist, with all its connotations of opprobrium. What you call someone matters. If he is a terrorist, he is an enemy of all civilized people, and his cause is less worthy of consideration.
Say, Clark? Throughout the rest of your pretzel twisting over “taking sides” (funny how they didn’t worry about taking sides when they were revealing the terrorist surveillance program, other secret opps, wondering if McCain had an affair, could get cancer again, was considered natural born, etc and so on), you might want to consider what you just wrote. “People who pursue political, religious, territorial, or unidentifiable goals through violence on civilians” are, yes, terrorists.
And Liberals/Progressives wonder why Conservatives call liberals/progressives PC pansies. Then the L/Ps start whining about shades of grey and not everything being black and white, and we ask them if they have Kotex in their manbag’s.
Email This
Posted by William Teach on December 14, 2008 4:00 pm
» Filed Under Journalistic Malpractice, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Propaganda, Unhinged, War On Terror, terrorism
Trackback URL:
- Hot Picks of the Day: Mumbai | The Style Log of Roddy Jones pinged this post.
- Hot Picks of the Day: Mumbai | The Style Log of Roddy Jones pinged this post.
Comments
6 Responses to “NY Times: Were Those Mumbai Folks Really Terrorists?”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
The factoid that escapes everyone is that if you kill Jews, Westerner, especially Americans, you are a freedom fighter. If you respond to the freedom fighter, you are a terrorist. Hence, Bin Laden? Freedom Fighter. Al Qaeda in Iraq? Militants, Freedom Fighters, again. Bush? The REAL terrorist. This is the Leftist paradigm. Besides, they are only killing “little Eichmanns” why should anyone care? They lied about 9-11. They would have danced in the streets with their Palastinian friends if they didn’t think that real men would come for them.
Because of an unending cavalcade of this kind of foolishness it won’t be long before the NYT is under new management.
Not just terrorists, but MUSLIM terrorists.
The Council on Foreign Relations controls the press.
And CAIR obviously controls the NYT…
Let’s be clear here that pakistan is a “terrorist state” and never have any illusion that it is going to be any different.We have made a grave blunder by suggesting in the international fora that “Pakistan is also a victim of terror.” We should stop interviewing leaders from that country who mouth the same inanities that “you have not produced any proof.”Let us not fall into the trap of providing proof to the culprits. More than 100 acts/attempts of terror recorded in the world since 9/11 have had their roots in Pakistan. More than 40% of the prisoners in Guantanamo are Pakistanis.
We should categorically, unambiguously, unequivocally boycott Pakistan in all aspects for a decade or more. Pakistan is the only territory in the world where an army has a whole country under its control. The state policy of Pakistan is terrorism and their single-point programme of existence is to destroy India.