This question was posed by the French newspaperMediapart. The publication says:
“For years, we impose very strict definitions: all of the Muslim” militants “- are” terrorists and fanatics, “and all the Christian militias – are” extremist or fundamentalist”.
Any war is, first of all, a war of words.
When the Nigerian Christian anti-Muslim groups organize pogroms, they are invariably called “religious clashes”, but when a similar is undertaken by “Nigerian Taliban” then everyone is talking about the massacre and terror….
When the blond, blue-eyed Norwegian kills hundreds of people, we are talking about fundamentalists, but when a man of darker complexion living in Caucasus is killing Russian soldiers, that is immediately labeled “the terrorism”.
When Dupont Lajoie kills migrants in France – is a manifestation of mental disorder.
When two planes hit the towers of New York, we are talking about the terrorist attack, but when the drones strikes in Afghanistan every day, killing people – it’s just a job the U.S. military has been tasked to do.
And so it goes on…
The repetition of certain words is intended to develop a conditioned reflex in humans. When “we” fire the “terrorists”, then say to myself: “Well, serves them well these no-gooders!”
When “they” blow up a bomb amongst “us”, we are “offered” massive increase in the numbers of police and less freedom, and we say to ourselves: “Well, that’s the way it is.”
According to the newspaper, “Both kinds of militants ought to be leveled-out in terms of what language we use to describe them. May they all be “terrorists”, because they share a common denominator in “struggle against any secularism, socialism, fascism, globalism and the likes as collaboration, understanding…”
source : Kavkaz Center
