Is "Terrorist" really just a description?

Submitted by Arti Persaud (Canada), Sep 8, 2004 at 13:30

Who would quarrel with the term 'terrorist" if it is just used descriptively? What I suspect most journalists worry about is that the term might smuggle in judgements about the nature of terrorism and the proper way to address it. This is a point that Daniel Pipes unwittingly concedes when he says, "Worse, the multiple euphemisms for terrorist obstruct a clear understanding of the violent threats confronting the civilized world." So for him the word 'terrorist' does reflect a certain understanding of the world - he labels it 'clear'. But I am sure many people would disagree with his understanding of the world and would be reluctant to use a word that instantiates it.

In any case, I think he overstates his point. Whether the term "terrorist' or 'militant' is used, who can fail to see the barbarity of what happened at Beslan?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".