Ask The Media: What Is The Difference Between A Terrorist And A Militant?

Here are some clues.

An 8 year-old boy was hanged by militants in Afghanistan’s Helmand province after the boy’s father — a police officer in the southern city of Gereshk — refused to comply with militants’ demands to provide them with a police vehicle, officials said.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the hanging, saying “this action is not permitted in any culture or any religions,” according to a statement Sunday, which provided details of the incident.

Karzai said he has ordered local authorities to root out the militants and arrest them “as soon as possible.”

So, thinking back to past coverage of what I would call terrorism, we learn that terrorism doesn’t happen in Israel or in Afghanistan or Iraq, for example, but clearly happens in England, Spain and Norway. What is the difference?

I have a few thoughts. 1. Jewish people and people with dark skin (there is quite a bit of overlap here) cannot be victims of terrorism, according the the MSM; therefore the perpetrators can only be militants, not terrorists. 2. People in poorer countries cannot be victims of terrorism, therefore the perpetrators can only be militants or activists. 3. Citizens of western nations, predominantly Christian, light-skinned people, can be victims of terrorism, so the perpetrators are always labeled terrorists.

Am I missing something here? Have I found the definitions of both terrorists and militants? I mean, what else can it be? Help me out here.

Thanks,

Aggie

2 Comments »

  1. Buck O'Fama said,

    July 24, 2011 @ 2:19 pm

    White racists are terrorists, black racists are militants.

    Tea Partyers are terrorists, violent lefty demonstators are militants.

    Oil companies are terrorists, global warming jihadists are militants.

    The real question is why anyone asks the $#@%$ media anything.

  2. Joe said,

    July 25, 2011 @ 1:05 am

    Buck’s right

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment