I was reading an interesting exchange this morning between Gilbert Achcar and Noam Chomsky – the subject was terrorism, or more precisely, defining terrorism. Both, in the end, agreed that the definition of the problem is made more difficult by the need for profound dishonesty, that is, in the end, terrorism must mean “something that is done to us”, and not “something we do to others.”
That is indeed a problem. The official definition is the “calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature.” We can all agree that 9/11 was an act of terror, but what about bombing Serbia or Gaza, invading Iraq, and now attacking Pakistan by means of Afghanistan … maybe these are not acts of terrorism in that the goals are probably financial. But I’m not sure. We could be imposing an ideology on them- did not the Nazis impose their ideology on Vichy France? Do we not now have Vichy Iraq? Will we not soon have Vichy Afghanistan?
I gotta say, I’m catching the distinct odor of terrorism here – things we are doing to others … wait! Not possible. My bad.
If the real definition of terrorism is only things done to us by others, then we have to craft a definition that exempts us.
Policy experts are hard at work on the problem. They’ll come up with something, and it will be reprinted in all the fine journals and discussed on all the intellectual forums.
We’ll soon have a working definition. I’ll keep you posted.
Piece of Mindful 
Indeed.
Theft is when you take what is not yours.
But its not theft when its done by the government.
It’s “tax”
Murder is when you take innocent life.
But its not murder when its done by government.
It’s unavoidable “collateral damage”.
Polylogism and “Revolution within the Form” is a core requirement of politics.
LikeLike