On the other hand, if this was Israeli fire there would be a long story about the daycare center, indicating that only through an accident of time did the Israeli fire avoid killing happy little children–who no doubt had just finished watching their tv show encouraging them to drink their milk, listen to their mothers, look both ways before crossing the street, and kill Jews.

They aren’t simply terrorists. The Tamil Tigers are terrorists. The Maoists of Nepal were terrorists.

These are genocidally bigoted murderers. No one should be dealing with them, supporting them, making excuses for them. The mainstream (meanstreak) media are complicit in conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, by covering for them. As usual.

From the LA Times article quoted above: “Israel said Palestinian militants had fired 40 mortar rounds…”

Note the word “militants.” I’ve seen that word used a lot lately by the New York Times to describe Hamas. Perhaps a decision was made by certain major media, later copied by others, to settle on a word that appeared to be more even-handed. “Terrorists” probably seemed too loaded and too partisan, i.e., too pro-Israel.

But the word “militants” is a feeble one. It makes it seem as if Hamas were made up of radicals who participated in demonstrations and party meetings and handed out leaflets. It’s one step up from “activists.”

“Militants” is not the same thing as “military” or “militia.” Apparently some idiot didn’t realize that. If they want to shy away from “terrorists,” then they should say “guerillas,” as the UPI article above does. That was the word used for the Viet Cong, if I recall correctly. It comes closer to accurately describing the kind of warfare Hamas and Hezbollah conduct, and it is also neutral.

But I don’t see what is wrong with “terrorist.” Some people may have been confused by the Arab claim that there’s terrorism on both sides, that Israel is guilty of “state terrorism.” So, they felt that designating as “terrorists” the same people that Israel calls “terrorists” was adopting Israel’s point of view too much. But terrorism has a specific meaning that is neutral: the intentional targeting of civilian population to spread fear and demoralization and, if possible, prevent society from functioning normally.

There are other kinds of violence and warfare besides terrorism, and there is such a thing as state violence. But “terrorism” is a specific concept that can be clearly applied without fudging. And by this definition, Hamas and Hezbollah are clearly terrorists. So why not call terrorism “terrorism”?