Disentangling Layers of a Loaded Term in Search of a Thread of Peace

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"If President Obama is serious about repairing relations with the Arab world and re-establishing the United States as an honest broker in Middle East peace talks, one step would be to bridge a chasm in perception that centers on one contentious word: terrorism.

The recent fighting in Gaza offered a potent reminder of the challenge Washington faces in mediating a dispute when the United States refuses to speak directly with some of the main players, including Hamas and Hezbollah, which it calls terrorist groups. Whether the United States has declined to speak with hostile groups because it considers them terrorists, or whether it slaps the terrorist label on groups it wants to sanction or marginalize, a battle over the term terrorist has become a proxy for the larger issues that divide Washington and the Arab public.

The perception gap, which grew wider when President George W. Bush declared his war on terror in 2001, was blown even further apart in Gaza, when most Arabs came away certain who the real terrorists were.

"Public opinion views what happened in Gaza as a kind of terrorism,” said Muhammad Shaker, a former Egyptian ambassador to Britain. “And on the other side, they see Hamas and other such organizations as groups who are trying to liberate their countries.”

more

[iconicgnom]

1. extra! extra! read all about it! Mandela off US terrorist watch list! July 1, 2008

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/07/01/mandela.watch/

Yes, the term "terrorist" is politically loaded.
Taking a step back, I think the term "terrorist" is used because it focuses on certain acts abstract from any sense of cause/effect. You punish the abhorrent act - you don't have to look further. In contrast if you speak of war, you can at least imagine examining the causes, the ways to avoid further bloodshed, etc. But if you just say "those f*#kers are terrists!!" it follows that all you have to say is "kill them!"

And now they're going to strike deeper into Pakistan, I hear, for "terrorists".

e.g. the object of "shock and awe" was by definition to terrorize the entire country of Iraq into a catatonic state. This was stated overtly in so many words by the Bush/Cheney regime, and not only were they proud of it, but the majority of the US were gung ho for it - or to be more blunt, were positively slathering, feeling no pain. Yet it wasn't called "terrorism", it was called a "preemptive strike" and came loaded with dubious justifications, and it never has been justified. Yet, nobody calls the US military a "terrorist army". Hell, it's hard to get somebody to so much as ask for some kind of official inquiry into whether all was on the up on up, during those times.

No joke about it, the term "terrorist" is loaded.

[Idealism]

2. How about we ask the Iraqi's who the terrorists are

I would say a good number of the 5+ million displaced from our presence there would tell us that we are the true terrorists. I would imagine the 1+ million killed would say much worse about the us...

[azurnoir]

3. The term terrorist got "beaten" to death

it got over used to the point of almost losing its actual meaning and becoming synonymous with "enemy"

[iconicgnom]

4. Do you agree with me that it isn't a legitimate term? n/t

[azurnoir]

5. Yes it 's not legitimate anymore n/t