What exactly is a "militant"?

[Argus]

I have seen a number of reports today concerning the murder of American Paul Johnson by Islamic terrorists. I could not help but notice the abscence to all the stories of two very pertinent words. None contained the word "terrorist" and none contained the word "murder".

Now I realize that journalists are none too bright, and that they are on the leading edge of political correctness. I realize, as well, that they have been avoiding the word "terrorist" because they somehow believe this is "prejudicial". As if the word did not have a recognized definition and its use somehow constituted making a judgement.

But when did they stop using the word "murder"? Is that also making a judgement? Can there be any doubt, any question, even in the minds of the most ignorant of anti-American bigots, that Johnson was murdered? Is there anyone out there who isn't a Muslim who believes his killing was justified?

And what are we to make of the universal term now used as a substitute for terrorist - militant? I thought a militant was someone who was somewhat argumentative and uncooperative; environmental or union militants, as examples. Now it appears that the term "miltant" means "murdering terrorist scum".

Should we alert the dictionary people? Do we need to get the words re-written? Or do we just need to look into what's in all that hair gel and hair spray "journalists" use which has rotted away their brain cells?

[Michael Hardner]

I have seen a number of reports today concerning the murder of American Paul Johnson by Islamic terrorists. I could not help but notice the abscence to all the stories of two very pertinent words. None contained the word "terrorist" and none contained the word "murder".

Now I realize that journalists are none too bright, and that they are on the leading edge of political correctness. I realize, as well, that they have been avoiding the word "terrorist" because they somehow believe this is "prejudicial". As if the word did not have a recognized definition and its use somehow constituted making a judgement.

But when did they stop using the word "murder"? Is that also making a judgement? Can there be any doubt, any question, even in the minds of the most ignorant of anti-American bigots, that Johnson was murdered? Is there anyone out there who isn't a Muslim who believes his killing was justified?

And what are we to make of the universal term now used as a substitute for terrorist - militant? I thought a militant was someone who was somewhat argumentative and uncooperative; environmental or union militants, as examples. Now it appears that the term "miltant" means "murdering terrorist scum".

Should we alert the dictionary people? Do we need to get the words re-written? Or do we just need to look into what's in all that hair gel and hair spray "journalists" use which has rotted away their brain cells?

You're assigning motivations that might not be there. The CNN story I read on the web used the word 'terrorist' a few times.

And 'murderer' isn't descriptive enough. 'Terrorist' is a better word.

[Argus]

I have seen a number of reports today concerning the murder of American Paul Johnson by Islamic terrorists. I could not help but notice the abscence to all the stories of two very pertinent words. None contained the word "terrorist" and none contained the word "murder".

You're assigning motivations that might not be there. The CNN story I read on the web used the word 'terrorist' a few times.

Hmph. Try and find a Canadian or British source which calls them anything but militants. I checked the BBC, Telegraph, CBC, CTV, Global, Canoe, and even the Asper's greedy web site, and couldn't find a hint of the words.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

You can thank Mr. Bush, both Sr. and Jr for the gobbledegook. They muddied the waters fairly well by declaring war on non-existential entities. The 'war' on drugs, and 'terror' for example.

Combatants are deemed to be those that bear arms on behalf of, and belong to an identifiable group, supported by an equally identifiable group, such as a soldier in a nation's army.

Militants, according to The American Heritage Dictionary (#2) are Aggressive, especially when associated with some cause.

The difference between these two is that combatants are recognized by the Geneva convention, and are, to a certain degree, legitimate. Militants may fight for a cause, but do not have to belong to a nation. They may have structure, but the supporting group may not be recognizable.

Terrorists fall into a different category. Terrorism is defined as "when one group attacks a second group to coerce that second group into actions against a third group."

Murder is the taking of life when not justified.

So, in WWII, soldiers were 'combatants' when under fire, and no soldier could be accused of murder under the circumstances. The killing of POW's, however, was considered murder.

The attempted murder of a whole religious group was considered mass-murder, or genocide. (not terrorism) The bombing of civilian populations by both the British (and especially by Arthur 'Bomber' Harris) and Germany was (or is now) considered 'terrorism'. That is because 'Bomber' Harris believed that by randomly attacking the civilian population of Germany, they would in turn pressure their leaders into 'suing for peace' or capitulation.

So, Mr. Bush has declared war on a method (however evil) of combat. In my opinion, all deaths by terrorism is murder. However, declaring war legitimizes the actions of both parties to 'combatant' status.

Sheer foolishness.

[August1991]

I realize, as well, that they have been avoiding the word "terrorist" because they somehow believe this is "prejudicial".

Good point Argus. The Israelis used the term "terrorist" diuring their incursion in Lebanon. Reagan used the term "freedom fighter" in Nicaragua. Tito used the term "partisan" in Yugoslavia. Now, you use the term "militant".

Druze militants? Druze terrorists? Druze freedom fighters? Druze partisans?

How about the US Revolutionary War term? Militia?

Journalists love words, and love playing with them. The real world is something else.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Imprecision in the use of words it an ongoing problem. Usually it arises from one of a few reasons:

-the speaker is unsophisticated either in terms of language or the subject;

-the speaker does not have a clear view of the meaning or intent they wish to convey;

-the speaker is attempting to mean one thing while saying another.

[idealisttotheend]

Think 1984, language is a form of control. The key to winning a debate is to be able to define the terms to your advantage and so make your arguments self fulfilling.

[Mouse]

It’s 100% true. For instance Boris Beresovsky, whose name came to light now in connection with Paul Hlebnikov murder. Who is he? Terrorist, freedom fighter or partisan? Some American and Russian journalists have proof of his links with Chechen terrorists (or fighters as you like). This refers, above all, to the alleged financing of illegal armed formations in the 90-s and their leaders nowadays. The $2 million Berezovsky gave to Basaev, militant field commander, as if for the …rebuilding of a cement factory in Chire-Yurt. Hilarious! The factory was never built there, of course. Can’t you guess for what purpose this money was spent? Berezovsky makes no bones about facts that he gave Chechen militants money for kidnapped Russian soldiers and journalists. I wonder where the money now? Retuning to current events, I’d remind you the case of American journalist, editor of Russian Forbes Hlebnikov, who managed to collect interesting materials about Berezovsky’s involvement in organization of a number of terrorist acts in Moscow. Such compromise cost Berezovsky a lot of money and impossibility of retuning home. Hlebnikov’s carelessness cost him his life. There is no need to say who cleared him away by hands of old chaps (I mean Chechen pals-bandits). So who is who one should judge not by words but by acts of people… Berezovsky always calmly reacts to accusations of “dealing with the rebels”, noting that he cooperated with what were ‘legally elected Chechen officials’, including Maskhadov, Basaev, Ugugov and Zakaev. Now he continues to have good contacts with all Chechen cutthroats. According to data of some UK special agents Zakaev enlisted his support for forming “Chechen government in exile” now. A man is known by the company he keeps. Foreign Wahhabists sects are supported from foreign Islamic elements and from the rich European guest Mr.Berezovsky, each had its own agenda. But they have a general goal. Otherwise they wouldn’t be all together.