« America's Hiroshima | Main | Molly Ivins Eats Crow »
July 14, 2005
War on the Word "Terror"
Words are essential tools in any struggle. In order to fight something, first you have to identify what it is that you are fighting by naming it. So it should come as no surprise that Islamic terrorism's fifth-column allies are attempting to erase forms of the word "terror" from our vocabulary.
Al Beeb (the taxpayer-funded propaganda outlet formerly known as the BBC), has re-edited coverage of the terrorist attack in London to remove the word "terrorist" lest it offend terrorists.
Al Beeb execs believe that "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments" could undermine the credibility they apparently still have among Muslim extremists and liberal elite true believers. Plunging headlong into self-parody, al Beeb's guidelines state, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and should therefore be avoided.
The dhimmis at al Beeb are evidently concerned that Muslims may disapprove of the word "terrorist" since — for extremely obvious reasons — Islam is very closely associated with it.
Another mode of assault on the word "terror" is not to censor it, but to render it meaningless by applying it incongruously. Thus fighting terrorism becomes a form of terrorism. The technique of moral relativism is employed to drain all meaning out of any word that may imply value judgments.
This strategy is favored by the aggressively psychotic Julianne Malveaux, whose recent ravings have included the charges that President Bush is a terrorist and that America is a "terrorist nation." Echoing Ward Churchill, Malveaux has asserted that "the chickens have come home to roost" — implying that 9/11 was just recompense for the terrorist activities of the sinister office workers and airline passengers valiantly slain by al Qaeda freedom fighters.
Malveaux is not an escaped mental patient but a fairly prominent liberal intellectual whose invective is often published in USA Today. She appears regularly on CNN and BET. The fee range for hearing her call you a terrorist for being American in person is $10,001 to $20,000.
While Malveaux is not mentally competent to be held responsible for the horrible things that come out of her mouth, people who should know better provide her with a soapbox as if her calumnies were legitimate. Whatever their reasons for doing so, they certainly don't have at heart the best interests of the civilization currently being menaced by people we're not supposed to call terrorists.
Hat tip: Outside the Beltway.
Posted by Van Helsing at July 14, 2005 9:54 AM
Comments
Omitting the use of the word terrorist prevents the viewer from understanding that the terrorist wants the viewer dead.
Posted by: Anna at July 14, 2005 12:24 PM
The word unbiased itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding.
Posted by: Pam M. at July 14, 2005 2:09 PM
I had the occasion to write a good friend recently in the UK with condolences, and to tell him how inspired I have been by the way in which the UK has handled the attacks - both her people and her government/law enforcement.
Naturally I did not mention her media.
Posted by: The MaryHunter at July 14, 2005 3:33 PM
Pam M.: That's an intriguing statement begging for a followup. Can you elaborate?
Posted by: The MaryHunter at July 14, 2005 3:36 PM
To the modern media, objectivity means the denial of bias, not the absence of bias.
Posted by: V the K at July 15, 2005 7:56 AM
