[Rosencrantz]

If you're going to be THAT PC about it, shouldn't it be "One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter"??!

Ridiculous.

[Tin Man Tex]

LOL Great point. I gather these jerks think targeting civilians is just another strategy. "Fighters" don't kill women and children.

[Pete53]

Sure is funny how the left describes terror.

[TexRef]

Well, one man's gunman is another man's hero.

Aren't policemen also gunmen???

[MarkWar]

>"We abstain from judgement..."

They abstain from thinking. They abstain from values. They abstain from humanity...

It's tempting to saying something like, They may abstain from judgement, but rest assured they will be judged themselves... But, hey, they're a corporation and who ever sits in judgement of a corporation?! God's certainly not in the business of redeeming corporations so God won't judge them. Are the individual employees going to be held accountable for the scummy decisions of their executive board? Mark W.

[TrueBeliever9]

One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Oppressor!

[VRWCmember]

Ronald Reagan refuted this ridiculous notion years ago. To paraphrase the great President, (and to add my own words):
I reject the notion that one man's terrorist is another man's "Freedom Fighter". People that can be called "Freedom Fighters" do not hijack civilian passenger jets. Freedom Fighters do not bomb shopping centers and restaurants where families are eating or sight-seeing. Freedom Fighters do not bomb schools or day-care centers where children are learning. Freedom Fighters do not target innocent civilians. These are acts of terrorists and any attempted moral equivalence between these despicable acts and those of "Freedom Fighters" is a complete lie straight from the pit of hell.

[Terriergal]

I guess then it comes down to which man is right and which is wrong. Hmm....

[BikinLiLo]

Here is one reply I received.
REUTERS POLICY REGARDING EDITORIAL POLICY
The loss of life and destruction in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania two weeks ago has affected Reuters and its employees deeply. Six of our own staff are missing, in addition to many colleagues and friends.
Throughout this difficult time we have strictly adhered to our 150-year-old tradition of factual, unbiased reporting and upheld our long-standing policy against the use of emotive terms, including the words 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'. We do not characterize the subjects of news stories but instead report their actions, identity and background.
As a global news organization, the world relies on our journalists to provide accurate accounts of events as they occur, wherever they occur, so that individuals, organizations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts.
The integrity of those accounts -- and the safety of our journalists in hotspots around the world who provide them -- depend on our adherence to these long-held principles.
Nancy Bobrowitz Senior Vice President Corporate Commuications nancy.bobrowitz@reuters.com

[william clark]

Okay, here's another loaded term for which "gunman" or "bomber" may be substituted: murderer

[Billthedrill]

"Terrorist" actually does have a rather more specific definition than all that - it is an individual who commits acts of violence intended to undermine social order by causing anxiety in the population that its members are under potential attack at any time. That is precisely what this act entailed, and judging by the reactions of people around me, has succeeded in producing.

Reuters knows this, of course. If it intends to blur the distinction between this term and the rather vaguer, more generic "freedom fighter" it can only be doing so with the intention of avoiding the negative emotional connotation of the former. But it is as propagandistic to avoid such connotations where they are due as it is to avoid them where they aren't. Reuters thinks that by failing to make a value judgement in this case they are serving the interests of objectivity. They aren't.

[Pelayo]

ter·ror·ism n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

It doesn't matter what the ideological or political reason is, its tactic. Even if you agree with what a terrorist believes thats does not mean you have to agree with their actions. So yes, they may well be freedom fighters but, that does not mean they are not terrorists.

[carmody]

I abstain from referring to Reuter's as a news organization. After all, one mans eyewitness report is another man's propoganda.

[Moby Grape]

Yet, I will wager that they WILL use the word "extremist" when describing the activities of pro-life activist, and they will use the word "draconian" to describe GOP suggested "cuts" in the budget.

[Steve_Seattle]

"freedom fighters"

Is it possible in any sense at all to describe the Taliban as "freedom fighters?" What freedoms are they fighting for? None. They are fighting to take away freedom from as many people as possible.