I’ve just been watching the news, with live, exciting, increase-the-ratings coverage of the attack on the Russian school. And I am angry over the language used.
Both American and British news (CNN and Sky News) networks keep referring to the attackers as “hostage takers”.
And a look at the web gives the same results, both abcnews.com and the NY Times
So why do the news agencies refuse to use the word “Terrorism”?
The attackers just murdered in cold blood over 100 totally innocent children in an elementary school . But the newsmen can’t bring themselves to use the “T” word.
The NY Times article refers to “hostage takers”," guerrillas", and “rebels”–but no terrorism seems to have occurred.The only news that did actually have the simple common sense to call them terrorists was the (dare I say it on these boards?) dreaded FOX news.
Has the concept of terrorism become so politically incorrect??
Or are they afraid that it might sound too much like President Bush, and that would be the ultimate no-no.?
I realize that some people may say that I am making too big an issue over a minor point of semantics…
But I don’t think so.Terrorism is a major issue in the presidential campaign, and we need to have a basic definition in order to have intelligent political discussion.
If a 3-day long ordeal ending in mass murder of 100 totally innocent children is only “hostage-taking”, what does it take to define terrorism?Would the N.Y. Times refer to the 9/11 pilots as “guerillas”?
The old adage that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter can’t be applicable here.Surely even the most politically correct leftists would agree that there are some basic definitons of unacceptable cruelty and violence against totally innocent civilians.
For God’s sake–they held an entire elementary school hostage, placed bombs all over the building,proudly murder the terrified children --and they earn the title of “rebel guerillas”
I know terrorism when I see it. So why don’t the news agencies?
Notice also that it is never mentioned that the Chechen terrorists are MUSLIMS! It’s never, ever mentioned…do you think the average American has any idea that Chechens are Muslim? The average American doesn’t know Chechens from Martians.
There were plenty of school massacres that were not committed by terrorists.
There is a civil war going on in the Russian Republic. The rebels, or terrorists, decided to expand the fight in practically all of the Russian Soviets.
The Russian forces have been known for blowing up administrative buildings in Chechyna. This is brutal payback.
It is safe to assume that this is not the work oft some angst-ridden goth kiddies.
That’s very nice and all, but we are talking about the intentional targeting of children. Even for the Chechen scumbag terrorists, this really is a new low. As a matter of fact, I am hard-pressed to think how they can sink any lower; they’ve already targeted and attacked hospitals and theaters, and now schools. What next, puppies?
This is by far, THE MOST DISGUSTING story, I can recall. Children, innocent kids, some younger than five years old, slaughtered. I can’t imagine what the parents are going through & can safely assume capacitor doesn’t have children.
With the exception of sociopathic ideologues & bug-eyed zealots, there isn’t a human being on this planet who would even attempt to rationalize this carnage.
The word ‘terrorism’ has become politically-loaded in the past few years. News reporting that aspires to objectivity shouldn’t use politically-loaded terminology.
And in any case, ‘hostage taking’ is far more informative than ‘terrorism’. In the same way as the ‘9/11 hijackers’ makes more sense than the ‘9/11 terrorists’. Indeed, to use the word terrorist in this context would not be wholly correct, because it exludes all others directly involved in the planning and execution of the attacks. But surely they were as guilty of terrorism as the hijackers?
Now we have some clear knowledge of the identities of some of the attackers, we can know what their religion was. While they were holed up in the school, nobody knew exactly who they were. They were presumed to be Chechen.
(Remember the assumptions of Islamist motives immediatly after the Oklahoma bomb?)
I’m not sure why they insisted on calling them “hostage takers”. Maybe because they had taken hostages? Just a wild guess, of course…
Seriously, why exactly would rather want them be called “terrorists” rather than the more accurate “hostage takers”? It’s not like taking hostages is usually considered as a perfectly acceptable activity…
…oh, another point responding to PaulFitzroy - assuming all the hostage-takers were Muslim: what does that prove? If part of the Chechen conflict, it’s everything to do with national identity and basic human rights, and nothing do do with Islamist fundamentalism. Or should we just identify the religion of every Muslim criminal?
Calling it terrorism wouldn’t necessarily help Bush. Just the other night he was telling us how much progress has been made in the “War on Terror,” but the numbers tell a dramatically different story. Chechen terrorism would be seen as a setback, more or less, for Bush if anyone really believed he was fighting terrorism itself (which he isn’t) or trying to make the world a safer place (which he isn’t).
This was not an individual criminal act. They deliberately went out of their way to use terror as a weapon and invited 1000 kids to the party. What common thread connects this event to similar ones around the world?
Reports I read earlier (I wish I still had the link) claimed that some of the terrorists were ‘arabic’, and were saying that AQ might be involved. Any truth to this? (and no, I didn’t read it on fox…I think it was on MSNBC, but I don’t remember now).
As to whether or not they SHOULD be called terrorists, I’d say their actions speak for themselves…and they ARE terrorists. However, I fail to see why its important to lable them one way or the other…again, their terrible actions speak for themselves. I feel really bad for the Russians on this and my heart goes out to the parents that lost children.
What do you suppose will be the outcome of this from the international community? Leave it as just a ‘Russian internal problem’? Will the international community punish the Chechen’s? SHOULD they be punished? Will America offer assistance? Do the Russians even WANT any help in this thing?
(A post I made on BBQ…There are a few threads on this running.)
this was a political motivated action.
It is no surprize that the Russian want to drag outsiders into this. Putin jumped on the Bush wagon and hence wants to make it appear that every action undertaken by Chechens has ties to AQ or is “influence by” AQ.
They should have waited a bit though because it is not adding to credibility to make statements about “Arabs” in a situation where nobody even knows how many terrorist there were involved in this, how many children and how many adults there were in the school taken hostage, how many died and how many are wounded.
To come up with “Arab” ID’s in such a situation makes on me the same effect as the claim that a passport of one of the hijackers of the planes that flex in the WTC by soùme miracle landed on top of the rubble and by even as much as a miracle was found in the midts of that chaotic destruction.
On the other hand it can be possible that outsiders are involved. It is known that there is ongoing infiltration in the Chechnya conflict from radicalists among which there are people with AQ links or AQ connections. The radicalisation of the younger generation of Chechen rebels is partly due to this influence.
Yet in this case it is something I look at with unbelief because as far as I heard there were first of all none of these typical demands made as you hear when people call thesmselves “Islamic…this or that…”
And even when such would have been (or is) the case: To tie it then to AQ is making them switch tactics in a way I have never seen. This type of actions is not an AQ tactic at all.
What is the case is that hundreds of children and adults are dead because of a war Putin can’t (and does not permit himself to) lose while he can’t win it the way he handles the issue right now.
(Why on earth do you drag the US in this? The US has nothing to see in Russia. Or anywhere for that matter )
Salaam. A
There’s nothing vacuous about the word terrorist in this context. Terror was used against a civilian populace for political goals. “Hostage taker” is secondary to the event. Which I think is the point of the post.
Maybe I misunderstood the ill-explained context of: “What common thread connects this event to similar ones around the world”. Please explain how I was wrong.
How is ‘hostage taking’ secondary?! It’s the fundamental primary sole issue of what happened!!
I can’t be calm when I hear a kid live on TV telling that they had to stand on books surrounded by explosives and were told things would explode when they would move. This all while they were already shaking of hunger, thirst and terror.
Among others.
And after I saw bleading little children, crying children and blood-covered dead children who could not tell anything anymore.
