Headlines such as "Resistance fighters, the militant-Islamist Taliban tried to penetrate the Afghan Province of Panjshir." or "When attacking the radical Islamic Hamas, several civilians were injured ..." or "The controversial policy of the."
will not be steadily repeated adjectives such as "controversial", "militant Islamist "or" radical-Islamic "tries to make mood? I mean, in reports on the US, it does not mean "in the capitalist-Christian US". And ultimately, every policy is controversial at the opposing warehouse.
I think every person in this country knows that Taliban and Hamas have to do with Islam, why therefore the religious affiliation has alwaysbe mentioned together with the name?
And why is not there no public discussion, where such a steadily repeated term is questioned?
So Taliban and Hamas are for the Sharia, ie Islamist. However, for example, killing innocent - such as women and aisle - Haram, so prohibited. And terms such as "militant-islamist" are also used to show that it is just extremists who violate our human rights.
"In the Capitalist-Christian USA, one does not need to say, as irrelevant.
This is important to most readers, the words
and "militarist "
or" [Several] victims "
and think:" ... someone who thinks differently than me, did something bad again? Oh my god, always different things, I have to read moreTo assure me more of my own ideology. "
At least subconsciously *
Thus, the readers are more likely to turn on what the press wants to get more money to get more money.
In 1979, the Islamist terrorists who were supplied by the US in the fight against the Afghan government and the Soviet army with weapons were called "freedom fighters" in the West Media. When they later fought the West, it was suddenly " Terrorists. " ]The Hamas is a radical-IslamistTerror Organization and as such in the EU prohibited and no club for peaceful-hands-holding cudders. So what?
No. The designation is correct.
It is "militant-islamist" or "radical-Islamic" groups.