I thought for the Times as for most outlets that if you targeted civilians (well, civilians who weren't Israeli) it was understood that that, at least, was the basic threshold for being considered a terrorist (unless we're talking about Reuters.)
But on the front page of this morning's Times is an article (now out of date) headlined, "Militants Attack in Saudi Oil Area; at Least 10 Dead." (Maybe the problem is that the article is datelined Cairo. Perhaps if the reporter had been a bit closer to the action -- or the headline writer -- the truth might have won out.)
Gunmen opened fire Saturday on three complexes used largely by Americans and other foreigners in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province and seized a large group of hostages, bringing the terrorist attacks that have plagued the country for the past year into the heart of its oil-producing region.
The report continues:
Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman in Washington, said one American had been killed and two others wounded in the attack. All three were civilians. He said it was unclear how the man died, and that the man's family in the United States and Saudi Arabia had been notified. However, he declined to give the man's identity, citing State Department policy concerning civilians.
Exactly what part of that is unclear to the people at the New York Times?
Apparently all of it:
One Western analyst said that militants surely saw the success they had in shutting down the Yanbu project and decided to carry out more of the same, especially since the Saudi Interior Ministry has repeatedly been able to track down and defuse the kinds of booby-trapped cars that have been used several times against residential compounds in Riyadh starting a year ago. More than 90 people have been killed in the past year in Saudi Arabia in terror attacks or shootouts with suspected militants.
Sugarcoating who we are fighting is just another way of downplaying the threat. These killers are not "militants" they are not "extremists" and they are not "gunmen." They are terrorists.
Update: What the hell is going on here? Do any of these people sound like legitimate military targets to you?
An American man who worked for an oil company, a British oil executive, a 10-year-old Egyptian boy, an Italian cook and three Filipinos were among those confirmed killed. A Swedish citizen and Saudi guards were reportedly killed. There was no immediate word any Japanese casualties.
And they're liars too boot:
"They said, 'You are American,' and I told them I am an American Muslim. They said, 'We do not kill Muslims,'" They then apologized for breaking into his home.
Abdul Salam al-Hakawati, a 38-year-old Lebanese corporate financial officer, said gunmen rummaging around his family residence said, "This is a Muslim house" -- apparently seeing framed Quranic verses on the walls.
He said a man in his early 20s, carrying a machine gun and wearing an ammunition belt, told him: "We only want to hurt Westerners and Americans. Can you tell us where we can find them here?"
Guess they made an exception since that Egyptian boy looked so threatening.
But that didn't stop the AP from describing these terrorists as gunmen in the opening graf. Then do say the government cannot protect itself from terrorists, but then they say:
It started when as many as seven militants in military-style dress opened fire inside two compounds housing international oil industry firms at around 7:30 a.m. Saturday.
They then fled up the street to the Oasis Residential Resort, an upscale complex with shops, restaurants, a private waterfront and an ice-skating rink. The gunmen apparently tried to target Westerners and avoid harming Muslims, according to Oasis residents and employees.
Well, these are certainly a better class of terrorist. I don't remember them being so considerate of not killing Muslims in the past...
Posted by: DaninVan | May 30, 2004 at 01:01 PM