One Media’s Terrorist – Is Too Often The Same Media’s Militant

When American civilians are killed by savages for political purposes; the murderers are referred to as “terrorists”.

When the IRA blows something up in England, it is always reported as a an attack by IRA “terrorists”.

The same is true for all political attacks upon civilians. And even when the military is attacked by non military assailants, such as: the “terrorist” attacks on US embassies in Africa. And the “terrorist” attack on the USS Cole.

The latest significant “terrorist” attack reported, was upon the Indian Parliament by Islamic Kashmiri “terrorists”.

HOWEVER: when Jews are slaughtered at a Bat Mitzvah in Israel, a celebration for a 12 year old girl’s symbolic transition into adulthood; the murderers are called “militants”. Why is that?

Why is it, that people who kill every other civilian in the world other than Israeli Jews, are called “terrorists”? But; Jew-killers in Israel, when made reference to; are referred to as “militants”?

This is not a policy restricted to just a few media. The term “militant” to describe Arabs who kill Israeli Jews has become common place with virtually every media. Including the National Post. This is not right.

If the international media has become so politically correct, so as not to use the term “terrorist” to describe people who murder “all” civilians for political purposes, then the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by militants on 9/11.

It can not be, that one media’s terrorist, should be the same media’s militant, only because of a different target selection. It is either terrorism for all, or militancy for all. One or the other. But not either – either due to Politically Correct convenience.

Remember; the whole world, especially the USA, and Canada to a lessor degree are on high “terrorist alert”. They are not on high “militancy” alert.

Why don’t we all call it what it is, even if the victims are “just” Israeli Jews.