If you're strapping yourself with explosives and detonating yourself in public in such a fashion as to kill and mutilate civilians, you might be "considered" a terrorist ... but not by ABC News:
During a World News report on American options in the aftermath of Hamas' violent takeover of Gaza last week, ABC's Dean Reynolds on Monday got out the ten-foot pole to describe the group whose suicide bombers have killed numerous Americans in Israel as well as hundreds of Israeli civilians: "Now that Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by Washington, has taken command in Gaza, some things are becoming painfully clear about the Bush administration's course of action up to this point."Calling a terrorist a terrorist is not bias. "Terrorist" is not a pejorative, it's a job description. If you fix leaky plumbing, you're a plumber. Using suicide bombers and car bombs to slaughter civilians is terrorism, and if you commit terrorism, you're a terrorist."Considered a terrorist organization by Washington"?! That's an echo of the formula favored by the late Peter Jennings, who in 2002 referred to the group that blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut this way: "The Bush administration says Hezbollah is a terrorist organization." As if it's only our government's biased opinion.
One suspects the reason that ABC News doesn't use the word "terrorist" is a desire to avoid offending their sources within Hamas.
--Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times
Comments (9)
I tend to agree that we should call people who are terrorizing "Terrorists". But, would you agree that our own goverment may actually fit that description as well? Considering that our goverment have supported "Terrorists" in the past (like Osama Bin Laden, Saddamm Hussian, The Shah of Iran, to name a few), are "those people" the only ones who we should call "Terrorists"? Or is it possible that our goverment policies have been terrorizing other people and countries as well?
Posted by Dino Crawley | June 19, 2007 10:40 PM
I think that you are right about informing people of what is happing in todays world
Posted by Ivory Peralta | June 19, 2007 11:50 PM
This is pretty typical of the thought process that runs amok at this newspaper. The statement, "Considered a terrorist organization by Washington" does NOT imply that ABC news doesn't consider Hamas a terrorist organization. Since it is our Gov't that classifies certain organizations as terrorist organizations, literally saying such is a simple factual statement. Your analogy using plumbers is typically inaccurate and contradicts your thesis. States recognize licensed plumbers. If I was to unhook my drain and clean it out, this act alone would not make me a plumber. If somone paid me to do this in their house this would still not make me a plumber. Only recognition by an accepted authority would make me a plumber. Similarly terrorist organizations need to be recognized by Washington to be so labeled. Where is your factual evidence that suggests ABC thinks otherwise? Did ABC news say anything in this news report or any other news report to suggest Hamas isn't a terrorist organization?
Your own bias against ABC news is appaerent when you use such words as "As if" and "suggests". Such conditional phrases that are not backed by evidence indicate very poor argumentative construct skills and a pre-disposition to assumptions not warranted by the presented evidence. Pretty typical of this newspaper and the people it hires.
Posted by Kenneth Cusick | June 20, 2007 5:59 PM
You are crazy!
Posted by Anonymous | June 20, 2007 7:25 PM
Bull patooties
Posted by Anonymous | June 20, 2007 7:26 PM
What they need in Israel and Palestine is three states. 1) State number one already exists with Hamas in Gaza. 2) State number two would be a union of secular Israelis and secular Arabs living together under one government. 3) State number three would be a state of radical Israeli settlers and Orthodox Jews. Ideally, states number 1 and 3 should not be contiguous and should be out of mortar range from each other, so that extremists on all sides of this conflict can rant and rave to their hearts content while the moderate majority on both sides can live in peace.
Posted by George Robertson | June 21, 2007 5:13 PM
I am not sure why there is any confusion here. There are tough decisions, but the answers are fairly obvious. If a person breaks into your home and or threatens your family, steals all of your money or attempts to rape a loved one, doesnt that require action? This is not a person to reason with or treat as if these things are not happening, this is an enemy. It is someone, for whatever reason, has set in motion a plan to hurt you and your loved ones. Radical Islamist's are these people that I spaek of. They dont understand us, and unfortunetly as a whole we dont understand them. We have lost our nerve and it is only a matter of time before a people who are harder than we are proveit to us. Thank God for the Marine Corp, though. One of the last spartan clubs left.
Posted by john | June 25, 2007 1:50 AM
We seem to use relativism to justify about anything in today's world. No one knows or cares what is right or wrong, we simply want to stand around and say "I'm glad it didn't happen to me". It is that type of attitude that prevents the definition of terrorism or genocide, the associated laws and then generates the situations like Darfur. It seems like our social intellect hasn't really progressed us past the predator-prey paradigm.
Posted by Larry Stone | June 25, 2007 5:04 AM
Speaking of pre-disposition to assumptions, how does one feel about Senator Feinsteins Media Fairness Doctrine?
Posted by Larry Stone | June 25, 2007 9:32 AM