Why not call a terrorist a terrorist?
Boko Haram, in Nigeria, uses tactics such as surrounding churches, then burning them down to kill all inside.
Iraq is besieged by an army of Sunni Muslims who favor crucifixion and beheading of those not fanatic enough for them.
Taliban forces trying to regain power in Afghanistan kill children for becoming “too Westernized.”
Al-Qaida continues to mount attacks against civilians throughout the world.
Yet some recent news reports about the organizations labeled them as, respectively, “extremists,” “insurgents,” “militants” and “Jihadists.”
What ever happened to referring to brutal murderers as terrorists?
For a few years after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on America, the term was common. It was found in news reports and statements by government officials. But awareness of the nature of our adversaries appears to have declined with their failure to mount new attacks in our homeland.
Even the U.S. Department of State does not include “terrorism” on its website list of important international issues. President Barack Obama discourages use of the word.
Why? Do we suppose that if we refrain from describing Islamic terrorists as such, their behavior will change? That has not seemed to work thus far. There may be a time and place for political correctness – but it is not in describing terrorists who want nothing more than to slaughter innocent people.