For several years now I have wondered if we are doing ourselves a disservice using the word "terrorist" when describing terrorists. This isn't about calling terrorism for what it is, as opposed to calling it a "manmade disaster", which is what the current administration wishes to call it. Nor should we call it or treat it as something criminal. Terrorism is war, or at least a tactic used during war. We are at war with these people . . these terrorists. The rules of war are very different than the rules of the courtroom. I, for one, want us to treat these people as our enemies in war; not as someone who is entitled to protections under our Constitution.
My concern about the word "terrorist" is whether that is a word of honor for the terrorists. They might call themselves a "jihadist" rather than a terrorist, but the word "terrorist" might as well be "ninja warrior" or "bandit" in their world. It can be a word of endearment and romance, again in their world, not ours. So when we as Americans use the word "terrorist", in our minds we are referring to the scum of the earth, someone who has no regard for life. In the terrorist's world though, maybe the word "terrorist" is not an insult. Indeed, it might even be the opposite.
I've been looking, unsuccessfully, for a word that satisfies our need to call terrorists what they are, while at the same time adequately insulting and shaming the terrorist. It needs to be a word that the terrorist would never want to be called among his own people. I've heard it said that in prison there are two types of criminals even hard core criminals find disgusting: those who rape or kill kids, and those who are snitches for law enforcement. Those kind of criminals live in fear while in prison. This same kind of dishonor needs to be applied to terrorists. We on the outside already dishonor them. It's among their own people that they need to feel this dishonor them as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment