Just so NS doesn't have a lock on posts on white terrorists, here's a post via This Modern World's blog, who cites "the story of a terrorist discovered to have
a bunker containing a cache of weapons and explosives worthy of an army: an anti-aircraft gun capable of firing 550 rounds per minute up to four miles away, machine guns, explosives, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and booby traps. Investigators also find pictures of President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with scope cross-hairs drawn over them.But not to worry: he’s a white guy terrorist. Which is probably why news of his arrest hasn’t made it much beyond the Grand Rapids Press."
Full story here. Using "Militia member" in the headline is pretty much akin to calling a suicide bomber a "militant" instead of a terrorist. Words count, kids.
So what do you call it when a government holds a colony in part by fear? Is that government a terrorist government? Or are those who fight against the colonizing power terrorists? I understand the point, but words do indeed have meaning. But not only one each.
Comment #1 :: link :: October 21, 2003 9:00 AM :: homepageNaw... small m militia is the best. It's sounds like the dimunitve of military. Almost cute. "They're a fiesty little militia", or "the militia is going to the fair"
Comment #2 :: link :: October 21, 2003 9:00 AMYes, I know, it's the old "revolutionaries are the rebels who won." But I'm still not convinced that you shouldn't use "terrorist" to refer to our "militia" member (a term that should be properly restricted to the National Guard, IMHO).
Comment #3 :: link :: October 21, 2003 9:00 AM :: homepageI think you want to stay away from perjoratives. Were the Contras terrorists, nutbags, revolutionaries, counter-revolutionaries, insurgents, foreign agents? Terrorist, as I understand it, refers to targets and methods, specifically hitting civilian targets for the purpose of instilling terror to sway political/social decisions. By this definition a government may use terrorism (using terrorist instead of soldiers). These guys in the US sound more like rebels, but we have to see exactly what plans they had or methods they would employ. As for Jimpy's point, how 'bout NGM for Non Governmental Militias, not to be confused with NGOs or MGM.
Comment #4 :: link :: October 21, 2003 9:00 AMSomething wrong with "terrorist"?
Comment #5 :: link :: October 21, 2003 9:00 AM :: homepageI recommend we develop an alternative label that would encompass everyone who prepares for or engages in political violence, unless under the auspices of a state recognized by the UN.
It could include suicide bombers and Michigan Militia, black and white, Jewish, Muslim and Atheist.
We could either make up a word ("Vorks! Beware the Vorks!") or just agree to refer to them all by a generic label that gets the idea across ("Nutbags" or "loonies" comes to mind).
Whaddya think?
I agree w/ Jimpy. Implicitly, we use the vork measure when we're talking about others, and the more tight measure only when we're talking about ourselves (but it wasn't a civilian target, it had a flag on it ! We weren't trying to scare anyone, they're just scaredy-cats)
Comment #8 :: link :: October 22, 2003 9:00 AMSee! Vorks rule! Vorks rule!
It doesn't require you to determine whether the person/group is trying to 'cause fear' (is there any military action where that isn't at least a secondary goal), it doesn't worry about the target (are National Guard "civilian" or "military?" What about police?). All it asks is (a) whether you engaged in or threatening political violence; and (b) whether you are doing so under the auspices of a state recognized by the U.N.
Spread the word! Vorks!
