Wargames Mark
11-22-2009, 05:06 PM
In a news story from Fox, the Associated Press refers to people who built and placed a 400-lbs net explosive weight vehicle-borne IED as "dissidents (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dissident)".
I understand being hesitant to use (or at least confused about when to use) the term "terrorist" but employing a car bomb is a bit outside of "dissidence (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dissidence)". (In this case, I would say it is flat-out terrorism, no doubt about it.)
To show my paranoid side, I get an uneasy feeling when the media start using the wrong word for something like this. I don't think they do it accidentally. Rather, I think that they seek to change the connotation of the word in the public lexicon, or at least to smudge it so that its meaning expands to cover things that never were part of its original definition.
Though this borders on conspiracy fruit-loop-ville, I get this uneasy feeling that they are seeking to lump political opinions and peaceful expression of opinions in with political violence. To extrapolate this a step further, they would then begin referring to those who oppose media-favored political opinions as dissidents or extremists, etc -> seeking to paint those with whom the media has disagreement as blood-thirsty homicidal maniacs frothing at the mouth, and so on.
This is just one example of the media taking words with established meanings and twisting them to convey things they were never meant to convey. Anyway, I've got to go get some more tinfoil...:)
I understand being hesitant to use (or at least confused about when to use) the term "terrorist" but employing a car bomb is a bit outside of "dissidence (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dissidence)". (In this case, I would say it is flat-out terrorism, no doubt about it.)
To show my paranoid side, I get an uneasy feeling when the media start using the wrong word for something like this. I don't think they do it accidentally. Rather, I think that they seek to change the connotation of the word in the public lexicon, or at least to smudge it so that its meaning expands to cover things that never were part of its original definition.
Though this borders on conspiracy fruit-loop-ville, I get this uneasy feeling that they are seeking to lump political opinions and peaceful expression of opinions in with political violence. To extrapolate this a step further, they would then begin referring to those who oppose media-favored political opinions as dissidents or extremists, etc -> seeking to paint those with whom the media has disagreement as blood-thirsty homicidal maniacs frothing at the mouth, and so on.
This is just one example of the media taking words with established meanings and twisting them to convey things they were never meant to convey. Anyway, I've got to go get some more tinfoil...:)