From: "Strong, Lee" <StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL>
To: "'WSFA members'" <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Political Inventions
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 07:57:24 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

	I agree with Ted here.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted White [mailto:tedwhite at compusnet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 3:32 AM
To: WSFA members
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Political Inventions

ronkean at juno.com wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 20:27:46 -0400 Ted White <tedwhite at compusnet.com>
> writes:
>
> > Samuel Lubell wrote:
> > > But somehow, when it is Jews being killed, the killers are called
> > > "militants" not terrorists.
>
> > I don't hear them called that.  I hear them being called (most
> > often) "suicide bombers" and (less often) "desperate" and "fanatic."
> >
> > When 18-year-old girls start blowing themselves up with the
> > objective of taking out as many Jews as possible (and actually do kill a
> 17-
> > year-old  Israeli girl), what does that tell you about their lives and
> > attitudes?   Well, for  sure they don't see much of a future for
> themselves.
> >
> > --Ted White
>
> When the Washington Post reports on violence in Israeli occupied
> Palestine, the term 'Palestinian gunmen' is routinely used to describe
> Palestinians carrying or using guns, and the term 'Israeli soldiers' is
> used to describe Israelis carrying or using guns.  Of course both of
> those terms are not incorrect, but the subtle implication seems to be
> that the 'soldiers' are somehow more legitimate than the 'gunmen'.

The "gunmen" are not uniformed and appear to be private citizens or members
of a local militia at best.  "Gunmen" is the best reasonably neutral
descriptive term for them.  And since the Israeli soldiers *are* soldiers,
in uniform, what better reasonably neutral term for them is there?   I think
the relative "legitimacy" of each term is wholly subjective; *I* don't read
them as you suggest.

--Ted White