sector404.org

"How extreme must an 'extremist' be before the BBC, CBC, NYT, LONDON TIMES and NPR calls them a terrorist'?", asks Emanuel A. Winston in his article 'MILITANT' OR 'TERRORIST'?

A few days ago I found myself asking the same question while viewing a report on MSNBC, by correspondent Hanson Hosein. He was recapping the latest on the Middle East "conflict" when he characterized members of *HAMAS (a so-called "resistance" group whose primary purpose is the destruction of Israel - by any means deemed necessary) as "militants", despite the fact they exclusively target, and murder Israeli civilians.

It's all too apparent that the mainstream media, including reporters such as Mr. Hosein, have a problem labelling the perpetrators of terrorist attacks against Israel, as terrorists. The media had no problem calling the 9/11 attackers, or the Bali night-club attackers, terrorists. So, why the double-standard, when applied to the situation in the Middle East?

Steven Plaut has a theory:

According to this, those people who blow up innocent civilians are regarded as terrorists and barbarians, except where they target and murder Jews. In that case they are "activists," "militants," people with legitimate grievances, people whose demands must be met and with whom a deal must be struck.

Much of the world's media, and especially CNN and the BBC, evidently have ironclad policies whereby Arabs who commit mass murder against Jews must never be described as terrorists. Instead, they are "activists," as if they are raising money for dolphins, or "militants," like people marching in gay pride parades.

Moreover, when a suicide bomber murders 10 Jews, many reporters and much of the media inevitably report that "eleven people died in the incident," adding the killer to the body count, just to let TV viewers know how justified the attack was.

What about Hanson Hosein, though? Why does he, specifically, avoid using the term "terrorist", when describing the murderers of Israeli civilians?

I decided to ask him, with the following email:

Mr. Hosein,

I'm writing you to as someone who is growing more and more frustrated by the moral relativism perpetrated in the media, and by correspondents, such as yourself. In your many reports from Tel-Aviv, on the Middle East conflict, you have repeatedly referred to members of groups like Hamas, whose goal is the destruction of Israel by any means, as "militants".

The Merriam-Webster defines a "militant" as someone who is "engaged in warfare or combat." Since warfare and/or combat, to be called such, consists of military operations between both sides, how do you come to the conclusion that a person who deliberately murders non-combatant civilians (defenseless children, women, and men) is a "militant"?

Your so-called "militants", who act on behalf of terrorist groups like Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (let me remind you that these, and other such groups are listed as terrorist organizations by the US State Department - see link), are no different than the 19 hijackers that murdered more than 3000 innocents on 9/11/2001.

I suppose, then, that it's reasonable for me to conclude that you consider Mohamed Atta, along with his 18 "comrades", also to be "militants".

U.S. state Department list of terrorist organizations

Sincerely,
Phil Essing

A pretty simple question, I thought. Until a few hours later, when I received Mr. Hosein's response (which he has graciously allowed me to reprint here):

Damn Phil, there are a number of reasons why I'm going to have a hard time arguing with you on this one.

I was thinking about this very subject today. I remember having this very discussion with a colleague a year ago. He got into a lot of trouble for not using the "T" word. This morning, when I was reading the Jerusalem Post (which calls anyone who kills an Israeli a terrorist, whether a civilian or a soldier dies), and Ha'aretz (which calls them militants, or extremists, or guerillas), I remembered our conversation. And I still have to agree with him.

"Terrorist" is an abused, overloaded word, with a heavy political connotation. Most people would agree, that anyone who deliberately targets, and kills civilians is a "terrorist." And as you point out, it's hard to make nice and call the Al-Qaeda bunch "militants."

I even go as far as believing that a Hamas suicide bombing is an act of terrorism. It's violence against a civilian population with a political goal. But Palestinians call the occupying Israeli army "terrorist" (political goal, civilians die though not necessarily deliberately targetted), settlers are "terrorists". An Israeli woman told me last week she thought Israel was committing "terrorism" inside the territories. Mahmoud Abbas called the Israeli army's attempted assassination of Hamas' Rantisi last week "terrorism." Ariel Sharon's patronage of the Christian milita during the Lebanese war, which resulted in the death of 800 civilians at Sabra and Shatilla could be perceived as "terrorism." Israel calls Hezbullah "terrorists," even thought for the most part, most of Hezbullah's killing of Israelis occurred on Lebanese territory in the south. Israel demolishes the homes of suicide bombers' families, hoping to instill fear in the people not to encourage others to attack Israelis. Does someone have to die for it to be an act of terrorism?

Hamas of course, will call themselves a legitimate political and military movement, that is waging a war of liberation against a state-sponsored army that has tanks and Apaches that kill civilians too. And that if blowing up a bus achieves their goals, then so be it. I'm not a huge fan of the "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." But it just gets to be an extremely slippery slope when you start branding people as "terrorists." Do you remember the stink when Canada finally labelled Hezbullah a "terrorist" organization last year? Many European countries still refuse to do that. They believe America's list of terrorist organizations, as well as its "Axis of Evil" is more politically-motivated than truly accurate.

Unfortunately, this will be an e-mail without a firm conclusion. I agree "militant" is weak. "Extremists?" I don't know. But I think if you look at most major news organizations, even those who may practise some partisanship, such as Fox News, you'll see that no one refers to Hamas or Islamic Jihad as "terrorists" (Fox may call them "homocide bombers" but that's it). It just takes you down a path that you can't easily get off of.

I don't have an easy answer. But I can't call them "terrorists." Nor do I call anyone else "terrorists." It's a word that has lost all value in its rampant misuse. And the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an especially sensitive topic where we all try not to take sides. And using that word just implies favoring one over the other.

---

I raised your point about "militant/terrorist" with a number of journalists here, including Israeli ones. They all said they would call Hamas and Hizbullah "militant organizations" -- because they are also political/socialgroups, despite the fact their military wings do carry out terrorist attacks against civilians. They were unanimous on Al-Qaeda being a purely terrorist organization. So as far as I can tell, all mainstream international media, do not refer to Hamas as a terrorist organization. And that's even despite what the U.S. government, or even the E.U. may decide to call them (I've heard the U.S. has even offered to take Hamas off its terror blacklist if it renounces violence and sticks to Palestinian politics). It's a difficult semantics question, and one not likely to please most people who can't fathom the idea of making nice with a group like Hamas.

I've probably opened a can of worms by responding off the top of my head, but I really believe in having a dialog with people. It keeps us on our toes, and it makes the "media" less of a faceless institution.

Thanks for writing Phil.

Hanson

(The above opinions are those of Hanson Hosein and are in no way meant to represent the opinions of his employer(s).)

While I take issue with much of his reasoning, I want to thank Hanson Hosein for allowing me to reprint his response, in this public forum.

---

* Here are a few highlights from the HAMAS charter:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up."

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

Posted to Current Events by Phil at 01:08 PM
| 0 trackback
email this entry
permalink

Friday, June 06, 2003

Remembering D-Day - 59 years ago today

At 6:00am (local France time) the morning of June 6th, 1944, the largest military operation of all-time began - Project Overlord

Project Overlord was the full-scale invasion of France, which saw more than 175,000 troops hit the beaches of Normandy (codenames: Omaha, Utah, Sword, Gold, and Juno), with the task of liberating Europe from the Nazis, and ultimately destroying Hitler's Third Reich.

More than 5,000 young men and boys gave their lives that fateful day.

We can never forget the sacrifices made by those soldiers. They fought and died protecting the ideals of liberty and freedom - a service for which we shall always be in their debt.

To the soldiers of D-Day: thank-you.

Posted to Current Events by Phil at 03:14 PM
| 0 trackback
email this entry
permalink

Friday, May 16, 2003

Road-map to Hell

Colin Powell has said that he can see signs of progress over the Middle East road-map. Israel, he noted, had taken measures which 'constitute the beginning of the road-map process'. Well, that's just terrific, Mr US Secretary of State, because we all know that the big issue is that Israel has not accepted the road-map, which all right-thinking people praise, and is therefore the main obstacle to peace.

So what were these Israeli measures? They released 180 Palestinian prisoners and opened up Gaza and the West Bank (closed to keep in mass murderers) as goodwill gestures. And what were the Palestinian goodwill gestures in return? They killed an Israeli gardener in the West Bank, fired rockets from Gaza into the Israeli town of Sderot, and sent a human bomb on his way into Israel from Nablus, with more to follow. Israel promptly sealed off Gaza again. But, of course, Israel is being oppressive and inflammatory and needs to be pressured into line. Does not the BBC tell us this, repeatedly?

Certainly, Israel sometimes does things that are bad, and it should be censured. But, on the big picture, it is having to perform to a script penned by Kafka. It extends a tentative hand to people who persistently murder its citizens. As a result, still more Israelis get murdered. The international community fails to hold the Palestinian perpetrators to account and instead blames Israel for not accepting the road-map.

continue »

» A chronology of terror in Israel

Posted to Current Events by Phil at 09:54 PM
| 0 trackback
email this entry
permalink

Monday, May 05, 2003

Montreal Israel Rally

If you live in Montreal, and want to show support for Israel, there will be a rally in Phillip's Square on Wednesday May 7th, at 11:00am.

Dear Friend:

I'm worried; I'm afraid our community will be embarrassed. We have our second annual Israel Independence Day Rally coming up on Wednesday, and the response has been anemic. Last year, 20,000 Jews proudly took to the streets to support Israel; this year, there are virtually no bus reservations, and extremely tepid organizational interest. (From organizational heads I hear the pro forma "I've announced it: our members/students/congregants have heard about it". But passionless announcements are meaningless)

What does it take for people to come out and support Israel? This year, Lucien Bouchard is our guest speaker, Ambassador Haim Divon will speak, prominent clergymen will address us, important politicians will attend........but the Jews of Cote Saint Luc and Dollard and Westmount are too busy to come; they can't be bothered to devote an hour or two to support Israel. Oh, yes, last year they came. There was a river of blood flowing in the streets of Israel, so people were motivated. But should it take a catastrophe to support Israel? Are we only inspired by dead Jews? What about supporting and celebrating Israel, particularly this year, as it tries to get back on it's feet?

We still have the time to turn things around. If you are proud of Israel even when there are no major catastrophes, if you love your Israeli brothers and sisters enough to take an hour off work, you will attend the rally. And if, like me, you don't want our community to be embarrassed, you will tell everyone you know that on Wednesday, May 7th, at Phillips Square, at 11AM, there is a rally that everyone in our community must attend.

I hope to see you there,

Chaim

Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz
CongregationTifereth Beth David Jerusalem
Cote St. Luc, Quebec

Posted to Current Events by Phil at 06:02 PM
| 0 trackback
email this entry
permalink

Thursday, May 01, 2003

Vus tutzuch?

President Bush calls in the head of the CIA and asks,

”How come the Jews know everything before we do?”

The CIA chief says,

”The Jews have this expression - Vus tutzuch? - (which for those of you who don't know Yiddish means, "What's Happening?") They just ask each other and they know everything.”

The President decides to personally go undercover to determine if this is true. He gets dressed up as an Orthodox Jew (black hat, beard,long grayish) is secretely flown in an unmarked plane to New York, picked up in an unmarked car and dropped off in Brooklyn's most Jewish neighborhood.

Soon a little old man comes shuffling along. The President stops him and whispers,

”Vus tutzuch?”

The old guy whispers back...

”Bush is in Brooklyn.”

Posted to Funny by Phil at 11:01 AM
| 0 trackback
email this entry
permalink

Friday, April 25, 2003

Baghdad Bob hired as Detroit Red Wings official spokesminister

Posted to Funny by Phil at 08:33 PM
| 0 trackback
email this entry
permalink

Monday, April 21, 2003

Pro-choice women's group opposes double-murder charges for the killer of Laci and Connor.

This is just unbelievable: Laci Peterson case tied to Roe debate.

The head of the National Organization for Women's Morris County chapter is opposing a double-murder charge in the Laci Peterson case, saying it could provide ammunition to the pro-life lobby.

While I do not consider myself to be pro-choice or pro-life (the subject of abortion is much too complicated to be reduced to a simple, black or white argument), I do believe that an 8-month old fetus is a viable human being - a person - and deserving of the same protections granted to any other person.

"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark said on Saturday.

At eight months gestation, Connor wasn't a mere "late-term fetus". He was an almost fully developed baby boy, one that could have easily survived outside of the womb.

This was murder, and Stark's politicization of this horrible tragedy is appalling.

Posted to News by Phil at 11:43 PM
| 0 trackback
email this entry
permalink

Moore lies, please

Michael Moore's anti-establishment, anti-corporate, anti-American pablum has become gospel for the elitist left, yet much of his work is nothing more than polished propaganda.

Bowling for Columbine - Moore's latest documentary - disarms you with humour, all the while feeding you a distorted version of the facts, and outright lies.

A montage of U.S. foreign-policy atrocities (to the tune of "What a Wonderful World") concludes with the statement that the U.S. gave $245 million to the Taliban in 2000-01. The next shot is of the World Trade Center in flames.

In fact, that money was not given to the Taliban government, but rather to U.S. and international agencies that distributed humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan. In other words, the fact that the United States gave money to Food For Peace and for girls' schools for Afghan refugees is supposed to prove that the America deserved to be attacked by al Qaeda.

Right after the footage of the airplanes hitting the Twin Towers, Bowling shows a B-52 memorial at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Moore intones: "The plaque underneath it proudly proclaims that this plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve 1972." The point is obvious: that the United States government and al Qaeda both perpetrate murder by airplane.

In fact, the plaque on the B-52 at the AFA is not as Moore describes it. The plaque says "B-52D Stratofortress. 'Diamond Lil.' Dedicated to the men and women of the Strategic Air Command who flew and maintained the B-52D throughout its 26-year history in the command. Aircraft 55-083, with over 15,000 flying hours, is one of two B-52Ds credited with a confirmed MIG kill during the Vietnam Conflict Flying out of U-Tapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southern Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas Eve, 1972."

Moore thus confirms the absurdity of the blame-America-first position popular among the Hollywood Left, by showing that such views require the ignoring of obvious facts - such as the difference between financial aid to a dictatorship and humanitarian aid to refugees, or between fighting enemy pilots and perpetrating war crimes against civilians.

Perhaps the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences should Revoke the Oscar they awarded Moore, since one of the prerequisites for the Best Documentary category is that the film be non-fiction.

An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

While the presidency of George Bush is certainly valid, one can not say the same of Moore's Oscar victory.

» moorewatch.com
» moorelies.com
» Truth about Bowling for columbine

Posted to Current Events by Phil at 03:55 PM
| 0 trackback
email this entry
permalink

Friday, April 18, 2003

New digs

If you've had any trouble connecting to the site over the last few days, it was due to a last-minute hosting crisis.

I got word Wednesday morning that my current hosting arrangement (the friends & family deal - free - at an ex-colleague's company) would no longer be possible, and that I needed move my site - asap.

"Yikes!", I thought to myself. Immediately, I needed to find a reliable and, yet, affordable hosting solution, without ever having done any research into the myriad hosting options available.

Luckily, I remembered reading that Charles Johnson had recently relocated LGF to Hosting Matters (also used by Andrew Sullivan), and seemed quite pleased. If they're good enough for Charles and Andrew...

Two days later, after a relatively smooth transfer, we're back in business!

Posted to Site Updates by Phil at 07:26 PM
| 0 trackback
email this entry
permalink

Monday, April 14, 2003

Our Western Mob - From the graveyard of Kabul to the quagmire of Iraq to the looting of Baghdad.

I could not agree more. In his latest article - Our Western Mob - Victor Davis Hanson writes eloquently on the defeatist nature of the western media, and its pathological need for perfection.

What was striking about the Iraqi capitulations was the absence of general looting on the part of the victorious army. From the fall of Constantinople to the Iraqi takeover of Kuwait City, winners usually plunder and pillage. American and British soldiers instead did the opposite, trying to protect others' property as they turned on water and power. That much of the looting was no more indiscriminate than what we saw in Los Angeles after the Rodney King Verdict, in the New York during blackouts, or in some major cities after Super Bowl victories, made no impression on the reporting. Remember this was a long-suffering impoverished people lashing out at Baathists - not affluent, smug American kids looting and breaking windows at the World Trade Organization in Seattle.

[...]

All this was lost on our journalistic elite, who like Athenians of old wished to find scapegoats in the midst of undreamed good news. Dan Rather, for example, finished one of his broadcasts from liberated Baghdad with an incredible "before" and "after" footage of his entry that should rank as one of the most absurd pieces of the entire war coverage. Tape rolled of his initial drive a few weeks ago to Saddam's HQ, when the roads were once safe from banditry and free of destruction. Then in glum tones he chronicled his harrowing current arrival into Baghdad amid craters and gunfire.

Mr. Rather - so unlike a Michael Kelly or David Bloom - forgot that he was now motoring right smack into a war zone. And he seemed oblivious that just a few weeks ago he had just conducted a scripted and choreographed interview with a mass murderer. Consider the sheer historical ignorance of it all: Was Berlin a nicer place in 1939 or 1946? And why and for whom?

Posted to Current Events by Phil at 01:30 PM
| 0 trackback
email this entry
permalink

Previously...

» contents

about archives contact prefs resume	search signup stats wishlist workstation
» home

» syndication

To syndicate sector404.org, choose from one of the following two RSS formats:

» rss 2.0 feed
» rss 1.0 feed

» newsfeeds