From the comments appended to the story
"Would it be so terrible to call these animals terrorists? If these are not terrorists then what is? The term militants implies an act of war with a strategic purpose. it legitimizes the perpetrator. Would anybody dare call the 9-11 highjackers 'militants'? Lets stop with the orwellian newspeak and call it what it is!!!!
— michael, nyc"
Indian Forces Battle Pockets of Militants - Readers' Comments - NYTimes.com
I guess even NYC living, NYT-reading folks can only take so much tripe!
2 comments:
Another reader comment
I find the use of words by your journalists very interesting--militant, not terrorist. Kashmir is described as "a territory administered by India, rather than a province of India." Violent acts on US or British soil is done by Terrorist, but on Indian soil you call them Militants. Why is that???
Let's see you describe California as a "United State administered territory" that quasi-legitamately wants to be annexed to Mexico, since there are so many Mexicans there. Fairly ridiculous, but that is similiar to the logic of Pakistan coveting Kashmir.
You are really supporting the terrorist viewpoint by quoting them, but not pointing out their dishonest thought process. Their posture of being victims rather than perpetrators is unchallenged, and the topic of Muslim-on-muslim violence in other countries goes unnoticed, as does the fact that Pakistan is a failed Muslim nation by any measure, that is now trying to bring India down with it.
Anita, US
— anita desai, bergen county, NJ
Another interesting comment:
**
New York Times, you disappoint me. I could not believe my eyes when I read this line from your article reporting the attack on the Chabad House in Mumbai:
"It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene."
...
**
Post a Comment