A Miasma of Words

Submitted by Jon Miller, Sep 8, 2004 at 02:35

Dear Daniel Pipes, your claim is that journalists are unwilling to use the word "terrorist" because they are "prompted by an odd combination of sympathy in the press for the Palestinian Arabs and intimidation by them."

Since desiring a "clear understanding" of things is your apparent goal, can you please explain in a clear way how one can be sympathetically imitimidated?

And can you also clarify how using the words: bombers, attackers, extremists, and kidnappers, etc., means that "terrorism is being semi-denied"? Just what half of the definition for "terrorism" is being denied with the use of these words?

Have a nice day,

Jon Miller
Philosophy Dept.
University of Ottawa

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".