Cowards

by Richard Lowe

Have you ever read something which was just so stupid, so downright silly as to cause you to not believe what you had just read? Well, that very same thing happened to me today. I read an article and did a complete double-take. I was sure it was someone attempting to be funny, yet he seemed to be serious so I did a little research on my own and discovered, yes, it was true.

I was reading an article on a web site and suddenly stopped, totally flabbergasted. It had to be false. The article said that Reuters would not refer to the terrorist attacks as terrorist attacks, and they would not refer to the terrorists as terrorists.

I quickly found the appropriate information on the Reuters web site itself. 

"Throughout this difficult time we have strictly adhered to our 150-year-old tradition of factual, unbiased reporting and upheld our long-standing policy against the use of emotive terms, including the words 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'. We do not characterize the subjects of news stories but instead report their actions, identity and background."

Okay, so let's see what a terrorist is, as defined by the dictionary (all definitions from dictionary.com).

"One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism"

So what is terrorism?

"Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes."

And finally, the definition of terrorism?

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

I don't know about you, but the acts that occurred on September 11th do seem to fit the definition precisely.

So what's the conclusion? Well, Reuters claims they are adhering to a tradition of  "actual, unbiased reporting and upheld our long-standing policy against the use of emotive terms, including the words 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'."

What do I think? Reuters is showing extreme cowardice. I believe that people need to look at something and honesty state what that something is, without sugar coating or hidden agendas. 

The only way to defeat evil is to recognize evil, confront it, and handle it using whatever means are appropriate. By being "unbiased", Reuters is doing exactly the opposite, and is in fact helping evil along. Being "unbiased" makes it appear there are valid reasons for using planes full of people as guided missiles against buildings full of innocent civilians.

So Reuters, I ask you this - if these are not "terrorists", then what are they? If this was not a terrorist act, then what was it? This makes me wonder how Reuters would have reported the holocaust? What carefully chosen, non-emotive terms would have been written to describe the genocide that actually took place? 

I have only one more thing to say to Reuters - take off the blinders, stiffen your spine and say the truth. Evil is evil, period. You cannot justify it, whether it be a terrorist bombing, a lynching, a murder, a rape or genocide. Evil is evil, it must be confronted, and it must be dealt with.

Coddle it in non-emotive terms and you make it appear less evil, you make it appear that the most terrible acts are tolerable if you have the right point of view.

Evil people love that kind of logic. They thrive when people cannot look them in the eye and tell them in no uncertain terms that their acts are despicable, will not be tolerated and they will be judged.

End of story.