What else would you call it AFP?
Headline from a Agence France-Presse story: Canada slams ‘terrorist’ attacks in Kabul
Kinda makes you think that some kids dumped packs of Fun Dip in an envelope and sent it to a neurotic bureaucrat.
Um, no. This was a full-blown, coordinated terrorist attack that killed at least two dozen innocent people in Kabul. To AFP’s minor credit, it didn’t include the eight filthy killers among the victims…or is it “victims” in the AFP style book?
Even the ChiComms have no problem calling terrorism terrorism without punctuational qualification, so what is AFP’s problem?
The Aussies have no beef with calling this terrorism and the perps terrorists.
ABC News Online: Karzai orders probe into Kabul suicide attacks
Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai has ordered an investigation into audacious terrorist attacks that killed at least 20 people and injured about 40 in the capital Kabul.
Heavily-armed gunmen and suicide bombers stormed three Government buildings, including the Justice Ministry in central Kabul.
Three of the terrorists blew themselves up; five others were shot dead after opening fire on civilians.
Mr Karzai has condemned the attacks as merciless, saying the perpetrators must be brought to justice.
I’m sure this is all Bush’s fault.
Email This
Posted by Greg Scott on February 11, 2009 6:39 pm
» Filed Under Indoctrination, Islamicfascism, Liberal Media/Bias, Moral Relativism, Multiculturalism/PC, News, Political Correctness
Trackback URL:
Comments
4 Responses to “What else would you call it AFP?”
-
-
-
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
Eh, it wasn’t a “terrorist” attack; it was an “insurgent” attack.
The taliban, being a deposed government, is basically fighting a lopsided civil war against the current government.
These attacks were all targeted against the government, making them part of the “insurgency” (or “war”, depending on how you want to classify it).
If the same attacks had been targeted against private sector buildings such as a marketplace, you’d be right to call them “terrorist” attacks.
It may sound like nit-picking, but the English language has half a million words for a reason; it allows us to communicate ideas more accurately.
Oh, OK, Jeff, I get it. So, on Sept. 11, the attack on the WTC was a “terrorist” attack, but the attack on the Pentagon was an “insurgent” attack. After all, al Qaeda represents the government-in-waiting for the coming global caliphate and the government building they plowed into was a legit target because we are just occupying that space until the rightful government is established. Thanks for setting me straight…yeah.
You are joking, right? The Taliban was never a legitimate government in Afghanistan. Only Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates ever recognized it. It is a terrorist group who had temporarily muscled and hacked its way into power.
And terrorist is as terrorist does, Jeff.
The attack on the Pentagon had elements of both because it was also an attack on a commercial airliner.
I’m not even going to address that useless mix of sarcasm and nonsense except to say that it seems like you’re incorrectly mixing morality into the definitions. There’s nothing inherently moral about an insurgency, so I’m not defending the attacks by classifying them as “insurgent” instead of “terrorist”. If the insurgency itself is immoral, as most are, the attack is also immoral.
Ok, but that’s not relevant.
Insurgent: rising in opposition to civil authority or established leadership
Whether they’re justified or not, that’s what they’re doing. That’s the proper word to use.
Terrorism.
Go ahead, Webster, read it. How now is this NOT terrorism? You might say it’s both, but you can’t say it’s not terrorism, Helen.