Replies

Of course, to Reuters terrorists are freedom fighters.

Of course, to Reuters terrorists are freedom fighters.

In this case, though, the quotation marks refer to use of the word by the Iraqi women themselves, so it is nice to see, right?

If the Iraqis consider them terrorists, who is Reuters to tell them they're wrong?! What arrogance...or is it ignorance?

You are right - words have meaning - and I am more concerned about the words our government uses to describe our enemies than the western press right now.

The words of the terrorists; especially, al Qaeda and its cohorts in Iraq; proposes to impressionable and religiously motivated young Muslims - join the jihad (holy war) - become mujaheddin (holy warriors) and shuhada or shahiddin (martyrs - enter into paradise). That said, we need to label our enemies in terms that potential converts will understand and respect.

I quote Jim Guirard of Just Causes here on how we should label our enemy:

"Imagine how much more difficult it will be for al Qaeda and their ilk to inspire and to sustain the suicidal zealotry of young Muslims -- or the approval of any truly devout "mainstream" Muslims -- once they begin to view themselves as mufsidoon (evildoers) engaged in hirabah (unholy war) and in tajdeef (blasphemy) against Allah and, therefore, on their way to jahannam (eternal Hellfire), instead."

When we describe our enemy as, say, "Jihadists" we are only reinforcing the image our adversaries want to portray. Other English words just do not translate well and can be manipulated by our enemies. "One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" comes to mind.

Mufsidoon does it for me...