Dana, let me clarify, “Militants” = “Terrorists”. Perhaps I should have only used the term “Terrorists” throughout the piece for emphasis, for moral clarity if nothing else, but I ended up with a variety of terms for murderous, thuggish, terrorists!
I accept that. The reason I was upset is because the MSM has generally only been using militants, in fear of their staff. Militants are not terrorists; terrorists are not militants. These were evil war criminals who took pleasure in their pogrom.
We seem to feel like if we apply the word 'terrorists' it makes things clearer, but the truth is that militants means soldiers, fighters, and militants can absolutely be terrorists -- or become such. It depends on the kind of movement and on the ideology. Peaceful militants are one thing, violent militants another. The Nazi militants were militants before and after the rise to power, and they did what they did. So the Bolsheviks were militants. And so are the members of Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Daesh, and similar others.
Many organisations have peaceful militants. But it is I believe important to remember that any militant of an organisation that advocates violence can become a terrorist, given the motivation and opportunity.
In a way, it seems to me, calling these monsters militants puts this fact in the right perspective.
Is this The New York Times? “Militants”? Really?
Yascha, you know better.
Dana, let me clarify, “Militants” = “Terrorists”. Perhaps I should have only used the term “Terrorists” throughout the piece for emphasis, for moral clarity if nothing else, but I ended up with a variety of terms for murderous, thuggish, terrorists!
I accept that. The reason I was upset is because the MSM has generally only been using militants, in fear of their staff. Militants are not terrorists; terrorists are not militants. These were evil war criminals who took pleasure in their pogrom.
100%
We seem to feel like if we apply the word 'terrorists' it makes things clearer, but the truth is that militants means soldiers, fighters, and militants can absolutely be terrorists -- or become such. It depends on the kind of movement and on the ideology. Peaceful militants are one thing, violent militants another. The Nazi militants were militants before and after the rise to power, and they did what they did. So the Bolsheviks were militants. And so are the members of Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Daesh, and similar others.
Many organisations have peaceful militants. But it is I believe important to remember that any militant of an organisation that advocates violence can become a terrorist, given the motivation and opportunity.
In a way, it seems to me, calling these monsters militants puts this fact in the right perspective.