The Error in Terrorist
Scanning googlenews, I clicked on CNN.com – Bremer to bring new strategies to Iraqi Governing Council – Nov. 12, 2003. For those not in the know, Bremer was called back quickly for a meeting with the White House. I think the word “quagmire” had been mentioned one too many times for the administration’s taste.
Now, I’ve tended to stay out of the debate. Not that I don’t have my opinions, of course, but it’s not something I’ve wanted to spend my time writing about.
But the following reinforces a problem – a rhetorical one – that I’ve had for some time now. The use of the term “terrorist.” Walking out of his meeting, Bremer said the following (according to CNN):
“We’re going to have difficult days ahead because the terrorists are determined to deny the Iraqis the right to run their own country. We’re not going to let them get away with that,” Bremer told reporters Wednesday.”
Now, without delving too deeply into why the US is there, and without (*sigh*) getting too political, let’s take a careful look at that sentence.
I read that as: “We invaded Iraq and ‘freed’ the Iraqi people. So anyone who fights against that ‘freedom’ is a ‘terrorist.'” Odd, though, because in the past, they were detailed at worst as “guerilla fighters,” and at best as “patriots” (Howdy, King George).
Now, before anyone gets their shorts bundled, I’ll make it clear – I’m pretty much against death (generally speaking), and killing (specifically), in most cases. So I’m not a fan of anyone taking a bullet or a piece of shrapnel. If fact, I think it would be much better for everyone if Nerf were the primary contractor for every Defense Department out there. And while I’m not thrilled with our recent decisions, I’m also not terribly pleased with the decisions of a lot of other folks either. My point? I’m not trying to demonize anyone here… quite frankly, everyone tends to do that well enough on their own.
The problem is, for some time now, the word ‘terrorist’ has been used rather loosely by the current administration. “The War on Terror” targets an abstract idea, so if you own the definition of “terrorist,” you can target whoever you wish. So what is the real problem?
No one owns the definition of terrorist. The US certainly doesn’t, which is why almost any attack since the “War on Terror” started can be phrased in those terms. And since the “War on Terror” is Game On, that means other countries can use the same policy however they wish. Which means that instead of being a leader willing to admit that things aren’t so good in a specific war – such as calling the Iraqi attacks “guerilla warfare” – we are being a poor leader, by paving a highway through a rhetorical loophole that allows all sorts of potential injustices to be done by anyone who claims to be fighting “terrorism.”
6 Responses to The Error in Terrorist
Leave a Reply
Archives
- February 2016
- April 2014
- March 2014
- April 2013
- March 2012
- January 2012
- March 2011
- February 2011
- February 2009
- January 2008
- September 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
Categories
IT seems to me like we claimed ownership of the word as soon as we entered into a doctrine of “pre-emption”. By pre-empting supposed diasters, we are also pre-empting our right to dictate the categorization of anything as “other”. Another thingification of the world.
I guess Orwell put it best:
“Any war on terrorism is, in fact, a terrorist war”.
Logic is dead. Long live logic!
Maybe it’s a problem in transcription: the White House gang uses the word with a capital “T”?
Rory, I am reminded of your wonderful entry that triggered an interesting discussion on the application of apocalyptic frameworks to world perception and interaction:
http://misc.wordherders.net/archives/000900.html
Word Pirates has some lively exchanges under the entries for T-ism and T-ist.
http://www.wordpirates.com/index.cgi/T/index.abc/
where one writer by the name of Putti Putin reminds readers of the term “freedom fighter”.
I suspect there is a verb form coming on … terror, terrorist, terroring… (“terrorize” is just too Latinate for the Prez speeches) Imagine the conjugation “I terror, you terror, she/he terror”. It has a counting game rhythm to it that hints at a possible link between being and doing and reminds one of the expression “X is a holy terror” to describe some two year old. Unfortunately in some games the participants don’t get to dance in a ring and then collapse in a heap of giggles.
Thanks for tearing the roar, Rory.
> Logic is dead. Long live logic!
Ha!
Francois – interesting that you tie it back to my earlier review of the Sept. 12th ‘game’; simply another rhetorical framework?
One question – who the heck is Rory? 😉
Rory
http://www.speedysnail.com/
is someone who should be reading Rhody
A comment at Planned Obsolesence
http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/po/archive/000199.php#000199
indicates that Rory, has used the term “highjacking” in conjunction with “the Man”.
We will see if the interpellation reaches …
*blink*
Hi Rory 😉