Dallas Morning News--ignorant editorial

[CoolOnion]

In reaction to the recent London bombing, the Dallas Morning News vows to use the blanket term "terrorism" for every conflict in the world.

(see "Call Them What They Are: Those who murder Iraqi civilians are terrorists," Friday, July 15, 2005, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/071505dnediiraqkids.105158b.html)

Excerpt:

"The notion that these murderers in any way are nobly rising up against a sitting government in a principled fight for freedom has become, on its face, absurd. If they ever held a moral high ground, they sacrificed it weeks ago, when they turned their focus from U.S. troops to Iraqi men, women and now children going about their daily lives."

Okay, fair enough, but then the DMN goes off the deep end:

"Chechen rebels...? Terrorists.

"Teenagers who strap bombs to their chests and detonate them in an Israeli cafe? Terrorists.

"IRA killers? Basque separatist killers? Hotel bombers in Bali? Terrorists all."

Whoa, there, people. The IRA? They've been on ceasefire for almost a decade, and have issued a series of press statements in support of the Good Friday Agreement since 2000. The world could use more "terrorists" like that.

Basque separatists? Palestinians? Chechens? The Dallas Morning News is seriously proposing using one word to cover every single conflict in the world?

And get this--they're trying to promote the GOP talking point "homicide bomb":

"Whether too timid, sensitive or "open-minded," we've resisted drawing a direct line between homicidal bombers everywhere else the world and the ones who blow up Iraqi civilians..."

But then, they conclude with this sentence: "To call them "insurgents" insults every legitimate insurgency in modern history."

"Legitimate insurgency?" According to the Dallas Morning News, there's no such thing.

Have a thought, comment or editorial? Send your letters (200 word limit) to: http://www.dallasnews.com/cgi-bin/lettertoed.cgi (submission form) or [e-mail]

Send your editorials to [e-mail] (600 word limit) and your comments to the editorial staff at the Dallas Morning News blog: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/blogs/opinion/

(The blog doesn't work like a regular blog, you have to email the writer; if they like your comment, they'll post it. It's a good way to let the editorial staff know we're out there!)

[no_hypocrisy]

1. By logical extension, let's make a list of other historical "terrorists":

1. Colonialists who unreasonably attacked the British monarchy and its businesses within the 13 colonies and who unreasonably demanded autonomy and independence. This country as it exists today is a fraud, based upon the actions of some well-organized "terrorists".

2. European Jewish "terrorists" who attacked the British (do I see a theme here?) in Palestine who were there to maintain order until autonomy could be safely established for the original residents of that territory. Remember the bombing of the St. George Hotel and Menachem Begin who went from "terrorist" to stateman? (BTW, imagine the irony of the Mideast Agreement with Jimmy Carter and two "terrorists" coming to a peace treaty.)

3. French "peasant/terrorists" who overthrew the Louis XVI and the monarchy around the time of our so-called Revolution. These folks went nuts, executing anyone who wasn't one of them. Guillotine, rapiers, daggers, hanging. All in the name of liberty. Terrorists all. And they seemed to form a legitimate government when the dust settled.

These are three arbitrary historical examples. There are more. They are offered to buttress the adage of one man's terrorist is another man's patriot (excuse the sexist language with the unintended exclusion of women involved in these matters).

[CoolOnion]

2. Your third example is where "terrorist" came from

The word "terrorist" is specifically from the Reign of Terror in France; us colonists were "rascals," "rebels," "rapscallions;" somehow, those words don't carry quite the weight today that they did in the 1700s.

You posted some excellent examples of why world conflicts should never be painted with the same broad brush. Isn't it interesting that invading forces are "armies" and people who resist are somehow the "bad guys?"

Oh, wait, I thought of another one--Reagan's "freedom fighters" in Nicaragua? Terrorists!

[CoolOnion]

3. BTW, I happen to know the DMN doesn't know anything about Ireland

Following the "Nightline" panel discussion featuring David Ervine (formerly of the Ulster Volunteer Force), two of the writers on the DMN blog were discussing it and referred to David Ervine as "that IRA terrorist."

They posted my correction on their blog, that David Ervine is a pro-British loyalist, not IRA.

I know that it doesn't fit the American "frame" to carry out bombing campaigns in order to remain a British colony, but that's where David Ervine is coming from--yet another reason that we can't use just one word to cover all conflicts.