Terrorism and Euphemism

Posted on | June 7, 2014 | 59 Comments

They’re “gunmen” or “extremists” or “militants,” but have you noticed that no one in the media wants to call them “terrorists”?

Gunmen have stormed a university in the restive Anbar province west of Baghdad and are holding dozens of students hostage, Iraqi officials said Saturday.
Police and army officials say the attack took place Saturday morning when gunmen stormed Anbar University near the provincial capital Ramadi, parts of which have been held by Islamic extremists and other anti-government militants for months. The gunmen have detained dozens of students inside the university dormitory, they said.
Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the media.
An Al Qaeda splinter group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and other Sunni-led militants have controlled parts of Anbar province, including the city of Fallujah and parts of Ramadi, since late December.
Iraq is currently grappling with its worst surge in violence since the sectarian bloodletting of 2006 and 2007, when the country was pushed to the brink of civil war despite the presence of tens of thousands of U.S. troops.

In the Obama Age, terrorism has been defined out of existence.

<br />

Category: Iraq, Media Bias, Terrorism

Comments

59 Responses to “Terrorism and Euphemism”

commonpatriot
June 7th, 2014 @ 10:42 am

via @rsmccain: Terrorism and Euphemism http://t.co/PKgnlBFH6P #tcot
MrEvilMatt
June 7th, 2014 @ 10:42 am

Terrorism and Euphemism: They’re “gunmen” or “extremists” or “militants,” but have you noticed that no one in … http://t.co/97zLble4Fg
CHideout
June 7th, 2014 @ 10:43 am

Terrorism and Euphemism: They’re “gunmen” or “extremists” or “militants,” but have you noticed that no one in … http://t.co/TdzcPvuibO
WeRResistance
June 7th, 2014 @ 10:43 am

Terrorism and Euphemism: They’re “gunmen” or “extremists” or “militants,” but have you noticed that no one in … http://t.co/2X9N34WUex
Citzcom
June 7th, 2014 @ 10:43 am

Terrorism and Euphemism: They’re “gunmen” or “extremists” or “militants,” but have you noticed that no one in … http://t.co/DNWKZFMPp0
Lockestep1776
June 7th, 2014 @ 10:43 am

Terrorism and Euphemism: They’re “gunmen” or “extremists” or “militants,” but have you noticed that no one in … http://t.co/KyxzR8QELv
Military officials urged Obama not to trade Taliban “4-star generals” | Batshit Crazy News
June 7th, 2014 @ 10:51 am

[…] TOM: Why not call a terrorist a terrorist? […]
Evi L. Bloggerlady
June 7th, 2014 @ 10:58 am

Taliban = Terrorist (certainly the five that Obama just released)
JoyKeller1
June 7th, 2014 @ 10:59 am

Terrorism and Euphemism http://t.co/8ckEvWdTFe #idiotmedia
rsmccain
June 7th, 2014 @ 11:46 am

RT @commonpatriot: via @rsmccain: Terrorism and Euphemism http://t.co/PKgnlBFH6P #tcot
LADowd
June 7th, 2014 @ 11:48 am

Terrorism and Euphemism http://t.co/oXbycYLiaL by @rsmccain
TomKattman
June 7th, 2014 @ 11:48 am

RT @LADowd: Terrorism and Euphemism http://t.co/oXbycYLiaL by @rsmccain
LiesDestroy
June 7th, 2014 @ 11:52 am

RT @commonpatriot: via @rsmccain: Terrorism and Euphemism http://t.co/PKgnlBFH6P #tcot
rsmccain
June 7th, 2014 @ 11:54 am

RT @Citzcom: Terrorism and Euphemism: They’re “gunmen” or “extremists” or “militants,” but have you noticed that no one in … http://t.co/…
jaasak
June 7th, 2014 @ 11:56 am

RT @Citzcom: Terrorism and Euphemism: They’re “gunmen” or “extremists” or “militants,” but have you noticed that no one in … http://t.co/…
aelfheld
June 7th, 2014 @ 12:19 pm

That’s because it sounds so much better to say “I’ve traded 5 gunmen/extremists/militants . . .” than “I’ve traded 5 terrorists . . .”
Bergdahl Escaped: Hillary Still Stuck on ‘Who Cares?’ | Regular Right Guy
June 7th, 2014 @ 12:22 pm

[…] Terrorism and Euphemism […]
McGehee
June 7th, 2014 @ 12:25 pm

Terrorism still exists, but it’s been redefined as “not agreeing 110% with Obama.”
ophidianpilot
June 7th, 2014 @ 12:45 pm

Terrorism and Euphemism
#tcot #pjnet http://t.co/UT1U2JrgSQ via @rsmccain
Baldy1957
June 7th, 2014 @ 12:51 pm

Libs love euphemisms- change the language, change the mindset of the ignorant. Hence- -sodomite becomes “gay”, murder becomes “choice”, and a baby becomes “tissue”. Evil becomes good, and good becomes evil. Read Kupelian’s (?) “The Marketing of Evil”.
L. Nat Bean
June 7th, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

The correct term is “jihadist” and almost 13 years after 9/11/01 it’s becoming abundantly clear that no material progress has been made against them.

Who would’ve thunk that, nearly 13 years after that crystal clear morning, we’d have a foreign usurper occupying our White House; a foreign usurper who actively sides with those who murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and those illegal aliens who murder about 4,000 Americans every single year.
L. Nat Bean
June 7th, 2014 @ 1:33 pm

Particularly in the age of fast, mass, global transportation, democracies are far more vulnerable to foreign influence and foreign ideologies than anyone really wants to admit.

It’s profoundly dangerous when a domestic political party subscribes hook, line, and sinker to a reactionary ideology that’s as fundamentally foreign and wholly hostile to the Constitution, and to the institutions of civilization, as today’s liberalism.
cyprinut
June 7th, 2014 @ 1:53 pm

Terrorism and Euphemism http://t.co/Snzq5HsyOm
Proof
June 7th, 2014 @ 2:18 pm

In France, when they riot, overturn cars and burn them, they are “youths”.
richard mcenroe
June 7th, 2014 @ 3:51 pm

They’re calling them “gunmen” because if they called them “terrorists” or even “insurgents” they’d have to acknowledge the Iraqi government established by GEORGE FUCKING BUSH GNASHGROWLDROOL is still a going concern after all this time.

Also, it glosses over the fact that so many of these “gunmen” aren’t Iraqis at all…
Sulli159
June 7th, 2014 @ 4:12 pm

Another act of “workplace violence”.
Sulli159
June 7th, 2014 @ 4:15 pm

Nothing to see move on here.

23,118 deadly terrorists attacks since 9/11
thatMrGguy
June 7th, 2014 @ 4:38 pm

Terrorism and Euphemism http://t.co/PAiThvXkBd
concern00
June 7th, 2014 @ 5:11 pm

I guess it’s “mission accomplished” in the war against terror. The left stills needs its symbolic enemy to function effectively, which is why there is so much focus on home grown enemies, such as Christians and white folk.
CrustyB
June 7th, 2014 @ 5:17 pm

Leftists save the term “terrorist” for the Tea Party..which is completely non-terrorist.
OwainPenllyn
June 7th, 2014 @ 5:45 pm

In the Obama Age,terrorism has been defined out of existence. http://t.co/xYBnSWww8z via @rsmccain #tcot #tgdn #teaparty
rsmccain
June 7th, 2014 @ 5:49 pm

RT @OwainPenllyn: In the Obama Age,terrorism has been defined out of existence. http://t.co/xYBnSWww8z via @rsmccain #tcot #tgdn #teaparty
MichaelAdams
June 7th, 2014 @ 6:02 pm

Same Aelfeld who lives in Texas, and commented so perspicaciously on Quid Nimis?
carolynkeener54
June 7th, 2014 @ 6:07 pm

RT @OwainPenllyn: In the Obama Age,terrorism has been defined out of existence. http://t.co/xYBnSWww8z via @rsmccain #tcot #tgdn #teaparty
cmdr358
June 7th, 2014 @ 6:37 pm

It does terrify them though.
Patrick Carroll
June 7th, 2014 @ 6:39 pm

Wasn’t there an elaborate plan about how we were going to do this surge thing and air out all the bad guys?

Oh. Right. Bush.
Steve Skubinna
June 7th, 2014 @ 6:50 pm

Jeez, how obtuse can you be? Of course there are terrorists in Obama’s America.

You may know them as Republicans.
Steve Skubinna
June 7th, 2014 @ 6:51 pm

Or just reread 1984. Orwell was not kidding.
Guest
June 7th, 2014 @ 7:03 pm

He was off by 30 years 😛
Guest
June 7th, 2014 @ 7:05 pm

Haven’t you heard?

terrorist = white, cis hetero Christian male who believes in the Constitution

even better if you’re a veteran
L. Nat Bean
June 7th, 2014 @ 7:23 pm

Part of the problem is the misuse and overuse of the word “terrorist”.

The word “terrorist”, properly used, would seem to apply correctly to hominids who engage in shock-and-awe tactics that target civilian populations for the purpose of gaining psychological advantage through fear.

While the Taliban may use terrorist tactics, I’d hesitate to label them a “terrorist organization” in the traditional sense.

In reality, the Taliban are an Islamist political organization who are simply continuing the latest round in a thousand-year war against the West.

It’s the same war perpetrated by the Islamist hordes currently over-running Britain, it’s just that the tactics are different, based upon the conditions in the local environment.

First and foremost, it is a strategic, long-term, multi-generational, religious war.

Since it is a war of ebbs and flows, most people weren’t even aware of its existence until 9/11/01. Sad to say, a significant number still don’t seem to be aware of its existence or the serious consequences that would surely accompany defeat.

While we may not like them, it is a mistake to under-estimate them. For all intents and purposes, they have defeated the US government rather handily after defeating the Soviets two decades before.
Steve Skubinna
June 7th, 2014 @ 7:46 pm

Actually the Taliban had nothing to do with defeating the Soviets. They sat that one out comfortably in Pakistan while others did the heavy lifting and only entered Afghanistan once the USSR left.

They’re really more equivalent to the hard core Communist governments in waiting that Stalin kept in hand to install in Eastern Europe once the local nationalists exhausted themselves fighting the Nazis.
Adjoran
June 7th, 2014 @ 11:43 pm

Quite right – the Taliban stayed hidden in the south and east (including Tora Bora) and only controlled areas the Soviets didn’t care about. They avoided engaging Soviet patrols.

Most of the damage to the occupation was accomplished by a collection of tribal groups which came to be known as the “Northern Alliance,” but were autonomous other than their joint military actions.
Adjoran
June 7th, 2014 @ 11:45 pm

It worked. Bush even did the hard work on the Status of Forces Agreement. All Obama had to do was iron out the final details and sign it. He didn’t, leaving Iraq to fend for itself.
Adjoran
June 7th, 2014 @ 11:54 pm

When President Bush left office, his team had already negotiated the major points and structure of a “Status of Forces Agreement” which would retain a US troop and base presence in Iraq going forward, to prevent revived insurgencies of radicals becoming a big problem again. All Obama had to do was finish the small print and sign, he had two full years to do it.

He failed, we left, and Iraq is anybody’s (read: Iran’s) prize now.

Obama is doing almost the same thing to Afghanistan. He’s leaving, for now, 10,000 troops after “full” withdrawal, but they will be in two very secure bases near Kabul, far away from where the trouble and the Taliban will be.
Adjoran
June 7th, 2014 @ 11:57 pm

The Taliban are in fact NOT designated a “terrorist organization” by the US, a point which three Administrations supported, so that talks could legally be opened with them at some time.

Unfortunately for Obama, Bergdahl was NOT held by the Taliban, but by the Haqqani Network, which is a designated terrorist organization which funds itself by kidnapping for ransom. Perhaps one day we will learn who paid, and how much. They certainly didn’t release a five-year hostage for someone else’s prisoners.
Adjoran
June 7th, 2014 @ 11:59 pm

ls that what they’re calling them? I thought they were rioting “Utes” and wondered why western Indians were rioting in France.
Proof
June 8th, 2014 @ 12:11 am

You’re thinking of “My Cousin Vinny”!
Former Bergdahl Platoon Members hit back against Obama White House Accusations | Batshit Crazy News
June 8th, 2014 @ 1:32 am

[…] As for those who say the President made a tough but right call, I absolutely disagree. No one is suggesting Bergdahl should have been left there intentionally. The question is the policy decision of trading one soldier for five very dangerous Taliban leaders. Those five killed thousands of Afghani civilian minorities (so what are we inflicting on the Afghan people by releasing them). That is not even considering the very bad precedent of trading five terrorists for one soldier (regardless of the circumstances of how that soldier got captured). This was the best deal they could negotiate? And what about the soldiers we lost capturing those five terrorists in the first place. And yes, the Taliban Five are terrorists. […]
Evi L. Bloggerlady
June 8th, 2014 @ 3:38 am

The Taliban are terrorist through and through. Their main tactic is focus on civilian populations for the purpose of gaining psychological advantage through fear.

Most of them are too ignorant to state it that way, they just enjoy the sadistic pleasure of tormenting ethnic minorities and women.