Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MrLucky who wrote (16005)	4/4/2006 3:49:18 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541912

A political statement doesn't have to be justified to be a political statement, if the means are violent. One doesn't follow the other.

To: MrLucky who wrote (16005)	4/4/2006 5:15:21 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541912

There is space between legitimizing something and condemning it. Declining to legitimize is not condemning and declining to condemn is not legitimizing. The space between the two is neutral, which I think is what the media are supposed to do, otherwise they are propaganda. Now we can debate whether or not our media should propagandize or not. That's another matter. The issue at hand is whether the word "insurgent" legitimizes. I say it doesn't. I say it's a neutral word. "Freedom fighter" would legitimize; "insurgent" is a neutral, descriptive word that well characterizes the group in question. "Terrorist" is a condemning word, but it is not a particularly apt one for the purpose we are discussing. Actually, I can't think of a word that would be the opposite of "freedom fighter." "Insurrectionist" has a condemning spin in my mind but the dictionary doesn't support me. Maybe someone else can come up with one.