The Rhetoric of Terrorism

Tomis Kapitan reminds us that words have consequences. A word that is particularly popular these days is "terrorism". The way it is used prevents a considered, thoughtful analysis of the reasons underlying a particular terror. For example, the President has said that ISIS "is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.” While ISIS has done some inhumanly disgusting things, do they really have no goal other than killing people? Would it not be wise to find out what their goals really are? Might this knowledge not enable us to 'fight' them better and more rationally? Without such knowledge are we not aggravating the situation?

Should we also not look at ourselves? Is our bombing of residential districts, schools and hospitals in the name of fighting terrorism not itself terrorism, when most of the victims are innocent civilians? 

Kapitan's conclusion:

In condemning terrorism, we think of it as something to be eliminated at all costs. Yet, in sanctioning the use of modern weaponry to achieve this end, regardless of its impact upon civilian populations, we are effectively advocating the very thing we condemn, and this is closer to doublethink than we should ever wish to be.