What's in a name

The Times recently made an editorial decision to call the terrorist group operating in Syria and Iraq simply the "Islamic State", and told us why.

One of the big reasons was because it's what they all themselves:

So, why are news organizations including the Times referring to the group that we targeted the other day as the Khorosan group, when they don't call themselves this:

Isn't this just some verbal Jiu Jitsu to avoid calling them who they really are -- Al Qaeda? And, why is the media going along with it?

 

The Washington NFL team calls itself something and some outlets have chosen to call them something else.

If the standard is that you call an organization what they call themselves ...

For the record, I am in favor of a name change for Washington.

 

Doesn't 99% of the media still refer to the Redskins as the Redskins? And the objection is because the name is offensive.

If this group is Syria called itself "Fuck you America", then I could see the Times and others referring to it by an acronym, or some condensed version of the name.

But, the Khorasan group is a made up name. The administration is calling it something they don't call themselves, to avoid calling them Al Qaeda. And, the media is going along with it. Why?

 

Because it's not Al Qaeda. The groups divorced.

http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know/what-is-isis

 

Thank you very little.

Try reading my post again, dummy.

The group whose name is in question is not ISIS/the Islamic State. It is acknowledged that they split off from Al Qaeda and are a distinct group.

The Khorosan group is Al Qaeda. They were sent there by the leader of Al Qaeda, and still report to him.

If this particular Al Qaeda cell had its own nickname, I suppose it would be fine to use it, while making clear that they are a part of Al Qaeda.

But, this group is not know by anyone as the Khorosan group, except by our own government, who came up with the name, and fed it to a compliant press.

 

You ever get tired of oozing butthurt? Go ask your mom and dad to buy you a truckload of Preparation H.

 

There's no butthurt. It's a legitimate question.

Do you have an answer?

 

I am missing the outrage here. The government and the military give groups/missions names all the time. Obviously the government sees it as a distinctive group and named it to distinguish it from other affiliates.

 

no, there's an evull evull conspiracy!!!

Probably has something to do with the M.N. being a M.N., ya know.

 

What other example do we have of the government giving a name to a terror organization? All the big ones I can think of are called by the name (or some reasonable translation of) the name they've given themselves.

What's obvious about it? That's the question. Are they a distinctive group? What makes them distinctive?

Or, is the government playing word games?

And, if they are, should the press be going along with the word games, or should they be questioning the motives and the language choices?

 

Hey dummy, did you even read the WaPo story you linked? Khorasan refers to the region the cell is operating in. So what if they don't call themselves that? Do a Google search for al Qaeda and Khorasan and you will find dozens of stories referring to Khorasan as an al Qaeda cell or affiliate. All publications decide on their own how they will refer to specific groups, like ISIS/ISIL. And this creates confusion for people who read multiple publications. But that doesn't make it some evulll conspiracy. Christ.

 

No it doesn't. Try again.