Exactness of Speech; “Terrorists” vs. “Radical Islamists”

There is no such thing as "a terrorist". Terrorism is a tactic. Oh golly it feels good to label groups with that word. Like calling someone a "bastard" or "liar" or "asshole." I have done it myself. Feels great. Yet it confuses things.

The venerable New York Times seems to have forgotten this. The article on a success in Canada yesterday is frustrating. Political correctness is allowing the war/debate/war to be framed with fuzzy logic. To use exactness of speech; you can not fight terrorists. You CAN fight Radical Islamists, Islamic Extremists or Islamic militants or any other group that has used terrorism as a tactic.

The words we use matter. Exactness of speech matters. From Carnegie to Covey to Kennedy to Emerson to Reagan to Thoreau to Shakespeare. Words #$()*@ matter. They matter a lot.

tragicomic comic on the Dry Bones Blog. The author, Yaakov Kirschen, captures it well and I particularly appreciate the exactness of speech.

Imagine a major victory against people who punch. ?? huh? Punching, street fighting, those are tactics. See my point?

Here is the article: 17 Held in Plot to Bomb Sites in Ontario and here is the keyword density report NYT_17 Held in Bomb Plot. You be the jugde. Search the document for incidences of "islam" or "terror" and which comes up the most?

In defense of the gray lady, this in-exactness of speech comes from politicians. Yet isn’t the role of media to call bullshit at times when issues are framed incorrectly?