[WikiEN-l] Re: "Terrorist" vs. "militant"

[Daniel P.B.Smith]

> From: "S. Vertigo" <sewev at yahoo.com>
>
> the term 'terrorist' is inapropriate as a
> primary descriptor; but much of American political
> rhetoric uses it. If I replace the term terrorist with
> militant, am I farting in the wind, or will I receive
> some support? This is a general editorial-type
> decision with regard to what terms are NPOV.

Who knows? Try it and see what happens. It's a wiki, all you can do is 
experiment until you see which phraseologies achieve a metastable 
state.

I did not like the article title "Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal," 
because I thought the word scandal represented a point of view, and, 
specifically, a trivializing point of view. "Scandal" seems to me to 
focus on the embarrassment of the U.S. military and officials, and I 
thought the focus should be on what happened to the prisoners. That got 
batted around for a while--one problem was that some felt that omitting 
the word scandal was _softening_ the issue--but, ultimately, the title 
"Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse" was accepted by all discussants and has 
been stable (so far) (I'm almost hesitant to mention it here for fear 
that drawing attention to it will destabilize it). Was it worth the 
effort? Well, the outcome pleased _me,_ anyway.

I, too, have a problem with the word "terrorist." The dictionary 
definition of "terrorism" (AHD4) is: "The unlawful use or threatened 
use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against 
people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing 
societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." 
Terrorism thus depends on knowing the _intent_ of the terrorists, which 
is not always easy to ascertain. Even in the case of the 9/11 attacks, 
as far as I know no specific demands were made on the United States. 
Was it, then, done with the intention of "intimidating or coercing" the 
U.S.? Or was it done to attract supporters to the Al-Qaeda cause? 
Labeling something as "terrorist" also depends on ascertaining whether 
the actions were "unlawful," which is another very complicated can of 
worms.

It seems clearly preferable to me to use terms that focus on 
objectively ascertainable actions (bombing, shooting, hijacking, 
killing) rather than on intentions.

I also feel that the word "terrorist" is currently being used in the 
United States in much the same way that "communist" was during the 
fifties: as a convenient label for anyone the United States wishes to 
attack. It is used because it is so emotion-laden that it has the 
effect of shutting down thought processes. To raise questions about 
anything labeled as relating to "terrorism" is to being risk being 
thought disloyal. For example, how can anyone possibly object to having 
the MBTA police search them without probable cause, since it is being 
done to fight "terrorism?"

But I don't know what you mean by "support" you. I think "terrorism" is 
not a neutral term, and I think it would be a good idea to use terms 
that are more neutral, but I'm not going to stand shoulder-to-shoulder 
with you in revert wars or anything like that...

Try editing "terrorist" in some way that does not seems to be condoning 
their actions and see what happens.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net alternate: 
dpbsmith at alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/