I am more or less in agreement that this whole incident has revealed a massive double standard in the mainstream western press. The guy has rarely been labelled a terrorist, whereas probably he would have been had he been Muslim.
For me personally, I think the term terrorist is too subjective to be meaningful in a legal, criminal or linguistic context. There is no agreed upon definition or reasoning for how or when the term should be applied.
I just think it was a Bush/Cheney inspired word, to play up fear (terror, of course) in the minds of Americans. The sooner the term is done away with, the better.
As they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The man who founded and led the ANC's armed wing, coordinating guerilla warfare against the military, before blowing up post offices, courts, and eventually killing many citizens would probably be called a terrorist in modern usage. And yet instead we look to Nelson Mandela as some sort of hero of peace.
I am more or less in agreement that this whole incident has revealed a massive double standard in the mainstream western press. The guy has rarely been labelled a terrorist, whereas probably he would have been had he been Muslim.
For me personally, I think the term terrorist is too subjective to be meaningful in a legal, criminal or linguistic context. There is no agreed upon definition or reasoning for how or when the term should be applied.
I just think it was a Bush/Cheney inspired word, to play up fear (terror, of course) in the minds of Americans. The sooner the term is done away with, the better.
As they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The man who founded and led the ANC's armed wing, coordinating guerilla warfare against the military, before blowing up post offices, courts, and eventually killing many citizens would probably be called a terrorist in modern usage. And yet instead we look to Nelson Mandela as some sort of hero of peace.