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

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(a)verizon.net alternate: dpbsmith(a)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/