Apparently when the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the BBC (among others) decides that they’re not. It seems that the Western media has some serious problems with telling things accurately and objectively. In the terror attacks in Mumbai this past week which left hundreds dead these news organizations refused to call these murderers for what they really are — terrorists. Instead they choose to use a more generic term — militants and in doing so they tacitly gave moral equivalence to these attackers as legitimate military forces.

The difference, and this is very significant, is that military forces abide (hopefully) by the 4th Geneva Convention. Today, even true quasi-military organizations like the Congolese rebels are expected to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But terrorist organizations eschew such restrictions and deliberately target civilians in order to effect their primary aim — to instill terror among them. As such they are nothing but murderers and deserve no protection from the Geneva Convention. But to call them militants clouds the distinction between actual military organizations and these murderers. And it seems that the Western media such as the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the BBC (among others) consciously choose to do so in order to inject their subjective viewpoints. In doing so they give an air of legitimacy to these terrorists that their acts of barbarism and murder is justified.

But these news organizations are WRONG. There is absolutely NO justification for deliberately targeting civilians and murdering innocent men, women, AND children. But according to the New York Times, the Washington Post and the BBC there apparently is…and hence they call them militants instead of what they truly are — terrorists.