I must admit, the article's headline took me by surprise; I posted this thread because such things tend to get summarized rather nicely on HLP, vs. wading through report after article on the situation. Call me lazy.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Having read another 'news' story there, they're also full of ****e, because that is a complete lie.
Heh, that article is a bit confusing in what they're trying to say I think. Is it that BBC/Reuters don't use the word "terrorist"? A Google site search proves that wrong, with ~275k results.
Are they harping on the fact that those agencies still define acts of terror as having been performed by "militants", "gunman", or "freedom fighters"? I think this summary is more accurate, but to prove it right or wrong would require one to read as many articles as one wanted to use as a statistical basis, and see how many times an act that is called an act of terror is stated to have been carried out y militants, gunmen, or freedom fighters. Not a small task.
All that aside, I believe the point they are trying to make is still a valid one: how should terrorism be defined? I also believe that they arrive at a very balanced conclusion - that terrorism is an act of violence carried out "theatrically", so that the actual damage caused by the bullets or explosion is far outweighed by the increased level of fear and terror the news of the act causes in the general public.
Which brings up an interesting thought study: what would happen to terrorism worldwide if there were no news reports on any terrorist acts? Nobody except the few thousand people in direct contact with the act would know about it (ignoring word-of-mouth for the moment) - fear and terror would not spread far at all.
Would it separate the terrorists from those who are fighting for their freedom? No, but that's an invalid comparison, as one does not necessarily exclude the other. Some groups whose goals are achieving their freedom use terrorist methods to achieve those goals, others do not.
A possibly inflammatory example of a group using non-terrorist methods to achieve a freedom of sorts (not necessarily their own state, but another type of freedom) is the gay movement. Except for among the homophobic population, gays aren't exactly striking fear into the hearts of men.
But they are battling for equal rights, freedom, whatever you want to call it.
Now compare those who use methods of terrorism to achieve their freedom. They are also freedom fighters, but their goals do not justify their means. Should they continue to be labelled "freedom fighters" when they walk the path of terror?
