Middle East Political Events

It is currently Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:46 pm

All times are UTC

Welcome to mepe

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: I Give Up: There Is No Terrorism, There Are No Terrorists by
PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:31 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 11:33 am
Posts: 652
I Give Up: There Is No Terrorism, There Are No Terrorists
~by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
June 2, 2015


http://www.meforum.org/5287/defining-terrorism#print http://www.meforum.org/article_send.php?id=5287 Share: http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=htt ... -terrorism https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?source ... Terrorists http://www.meforum.org/5287/defining-terrorism
http://www.meforum.org/facebook_like.ph ... -terrorism Be the first of your friends to like this.

When the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the world's largest news operation, decided in January not to call the Charlie Hebdo attackers terrorists, this made an impression on me.

The head of the BBC Arabic service, Tarik Kafala, explained its reasoning:

Terrorism is such a loaded word. The UN has been struggling for more than a decade to define the word and they can't. It is very difficult to. We know what political violence is, we know what murder, bombings and shootings are and we describe them. That's much more revealing, we believe, than using a word like terrorist which people will see as value-laden.

Not only can the United Nations not define this little word; one study, Political Terrorism, lists 109 definitions for it and debate over its meaning drives specialists to distraction. The concept just involves too many moving parts – personnel, weapons, tactics, networks, and goals. An American security specialist, David Tucker, urges those who would define it instead simply to "abandon hope" like those entering hell. His Israeli counterpart, Boaz Ganor, jokes that "The struggle to define terrorism is sometimes as hard as the struggle against terrorism itself."

If the BBC, the UN, and specialists cannot agree on what the word means, neither can politicians or the police. Does it make sense to soldier on fighting a semantic battle that will never be won? Why argue for a word that everyone agrees in confusing and some find loaded?

From the Washington Post

Therefore, I too have stopped using terrorism and terrorist (counterterrorism, however, is a tougher word to drop). It's not worth the fight. Better to use words like violent, murderous, Islamist, and jihadi, words that do not generate a definitional uproar. Better not to have to waste time arguing that the U.S. or Israeli governments are not terrorist.

Worse, this argument over terrorism diverts attention from the important fact, which is destruction and murder. Rather than have a debate whether an act of violence meets some theoretical threshold, let's focus on the real problems.

I have written & spoken some 200 times about terrorism; I argued over decades for its coherent use; note my Washington Post letter to the editor on this topic in 1984; as recently as last October, I co-authored an article arguing that the legal and financial implications of the word terrorism require that it have "a precise and accurate definition, consistently applied." My new view is that legal and financial documents should be re-written without the term terrorism.

It's been five months now since these words fell out of my vocabulary, long enough to be able to report that my analyses hold up and my political efforts undimmed. In fact, I am better off unburdened of it and its vocabulary debates. You would be too. (June 2, 2015)

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.

Related Topics: Counter-terrorism, Terrorism | Daniel Pipes

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

JUDEA, SAMARIA & the GOLAN are clear and unquestionably JEWISH!

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Donate Now
Donate Now

Hosted by © 2017 FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB
About FreeForums | Legal | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org
Report Violation

subSilver+ theme by Canver Software, sponsor Sanal Modifiye