Dedicated community site:
In civilized world we sort of got used to various bustards killing civilians for whatever reason they feel appropriate. However, recent 10 years of "media-lang" added a dangerous twist: we do not call them "bustards" anymore. I definitely recognize a threat of those killings becoming a valid political response in our crazy society.
For example, above we can see that "chechen rebels" thing from CNN again, accompanied by "militant groups in the North Caucasus region" from BBC. Therefore I would like to make a statement:
Dearest CNN, BBC and such!
Please get a grip on the language. People who blow trains up are terrorists (spelled with double R in the middle, no quotes). If you do not trust me, please consult Webster dictionary. It says "rebels - opposing or taking arms against a government or ruler". This is different from "terrorist - the systematic use of terror especially as means of coercion". They are not "militant groups" either. I fail to believe that whoever is in charge of CNN/BBC editing is not aware of difference, so I would take that for undisguised support of international terrorism.
I realize international news agency wants to stay clear of taking sides. In this particular example your "not taking sides" went really wrong. You are using terms which assume there is a terrorist government somewhere that is recognized internationally and acts according to international convention, that they are in the state of war with Russia and other countries and fight Russian army. Please understand the following:
- There is no such thing as terrorists government.
- They are killing civilians, not fighting the army.
- They have no land or civilian population.
- They do not support international conventions.
- They fund and are funded by organized crime.