One Man’s Peace Advocate…

As anyone with a pulse undoubtedly knows, numerous media outlets resolutely refuse to call terrorists “terrorists.” Rather, they prefer the hazier, less loaded term “militants,” which suggests a degree of potential legitimacy clearly lacking in the former appellation.

Though this strikes us, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” as willfully obtuse, media bigwigs tend to offer the same defense: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Perhaps this pathetic canard is the postmodern Left’s most esteemed gift to our journalist pals; could it be the most oft-cited example of moral relativism to be found in American life?

Of all the media giants pushing this brand of nonsense, surely our friends at Reuters are among the most notable. Reuters, if you’re not familiar with it, is a sort of unofficial cheerleader for the anti-Western jihadis; it also moonlights as a news service. As a result of their fine work, we presume that the Islamofascists have agreed to kill the folks at Reuters last.

Given its proclivities, Reuters naturally loves to call terrorists “militants.” In fact, it enjoys it about as much as paying for doctored anti-Israel photographs. That is to say, a real lot.

We had reason to reflect on this anew upon reading a Reuters report from September 17. Pertaining to worldwide protests about the situation in Darfur, the piece begins thus:

Peace advocates around the world held demonstrations on Sunday to highlight the war in Darfur, the western Sudan region where tens of thousands of people have been killed and more than two million left homeless.

Now, let us first say that we firmly support a vigorous military intervention in the Sudan to stop the ongoing genocide. Still, we found the appellation “peace advocates” a bit strange.

After all, don’t the demonstrators actually pine for an army to stop the killing in Darfur? Might that not require a bit of violence? As a result, aren’t the protestors actually the very antithesis of “peace advocates”?

No, these folks want intervention, not peace. But, curiously, our buddies at Reuters have labeled them “peace advocates” all the same.

And this takes us to our—admittedly nugatory—point. If one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, why isn’t one man’s peace advocate another man’s useful idiot?

This is not, we hasten to add, the case regarding military intervention in Darfur, which principled people of many political persuasions support. But certainly the far-left dupes who seem hell-bent on stopping the West from fighting but appear to consider Islamist violence hunky dory deserve Lenin’s charming epithet. If you ask us, the Cindy Sheehans of the world, whose sense of horror at the indignities of war is curiously selective, are quintessential useful idiots.

As such, we believe that Reuters should quit using the loaded term “peace activists” to describe such folks. Surely they’d want to come up with a more objective appellation?

May we humbly suggest “militants”?