So when did a terrorist become a gunman?

Question

have question when did the terrorists in Iraq cease to be terrorists and become gunmen. Are they trying to down play the terrorist part or are they trying to equate those that carry to terrorist?
If we were to go by the Old West terms I would be a gunfighter, because I use my tools to fight off the wolves. But in modern terms I would fall under a gunman mainly because I carry. I have never taken anyone hostage, never kidnapped, murdered, or slaughtered anyone. Those of us that carry for the protection of our families are commonly referred to as sheepdogs because we stand between those that want to do evil and those that are oblivious to the danger (or sheeple).
While we are all aware of that those in the media seam to be the least educated people in this country and they do have an agenda in this it's tough to see which angle they are going for, unless they are trying to kill two birds with one stone. Making the monsters not look as vile as they really are?

Answer 1

You are brilliant!
The News Media is made up of connivers who use "words" for their own agenda. It's a form of brainwashing and propaganda.
It's a same form, but more subtle, that the North Koreans used to brainwashed their prisoners during the Korean Conflict.
The Democrat Party is very good at doing the same thing, using words to change the connotation of a subject. An old communist trick.
(I'm afraid that most people don't realize what they are doing.)
Anyone who does not want to be a victim of this brainwashing should listen or read Rush Limbaugh's monologue on "Words Mean Things".
He covers this brainwashing that is being done by the News Media, Democrats, and others, such as College Professors.
Everytime I get fed up with Yahoo, someone like you or Jade comes along and makes me proud to read their Questions.
Good Luck & THANK YOU!!!!!!!

Answer 2

I think what were labeled the terrorists were originally the ones fighting the US forces and the Government. However, when the Shiites started shooting at the Sunnis, and the Sunnis started shooting at Shiites in retaliation (or vice versa, I don't know which sect started the issue), the US did not want to call the Shiites terrorists since they needed the Shiite support, so they settled on "gunmen" or "militias" or something that did not sound quite so negative as terrorists. They also call some of them "death squads." Or maybe everyone thought that "terrorist" was getting overused. As I see it, anyone who shoots at innocent people or uses bombs that indiscriminately kill innocent people is a terrorist.

Answer 3

Orwell put it best when he wrote "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." So words like 'terrorist' that have a specfifc connotation- someone who deliberately targets civillians to persue political goals- mutate into 'gunman', 'militant', 'guerrilla', 'fighter', 'extremist', etc...

Of course, those other words used to have real meanings, but American and International news networks such as BBC, CNN, MSNBC, and CBS want to avoid complaints by homegrown Islamic political activists. It's not like they are trying to avoid the t-word for accuracy's sake (Just look at how they used it against pro-life and pro-gun groups under Clinton!). They are trying to avoid upseting American muslims and ultra-leftists who support the causes of Hezbollah and HAMAS yet disagree with their methods.

Put yourself in the shoes of a reporter. Dozens of special interests threaten your reputation and your career if you don't pollute your stories with PC language. Some will even threaten your life.

Answer 4

The problem with that is, not all of them are terrorists now...

Some are doing violence in retalliation for the violence done to them... (The shiites, kurds and other factions)...

Al-Queida, (how ever you spell it), is inciting violence between the factions, by bombing one faction then bombing the other faction and having them both believe that the other is attacking them, and all along, neither one is attacking, but, retalliations are a "must" in thier culture, as fighting has been going on for thousands of years between them and with Saddam Hussein gone, (he may have been a tyrant, but, he 'did' keep the peace between them all, because "he" was the bad guy killing everyone!), then they have no one to interfere or intercede between all the factions and civil war "has" to break out...No one trust the other side.

I wish you well..

Jesse

Answer 5

Ever Since I learned What the White Man has done to the NATIVE AMERICANS!!!







HOKAHE!!!