In the endless parade to be politically ever-so-correct and in Obama%26#039;s campaign to distance himself as much as possible from any of Bush%26#039;s policies, the new U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has come out publicly refusing to use the word %26quot;Terrorism%26quot; in favor of a new word - %26quot;Man-Caused Disaster%26quot;. She claims the change is purposeful to denote a departure from the %26quot;politics of fear%26quot; to a supposed state of readiness for %26quot;any situation%26quot; that may come.
Do you buy this?
If a Terrorist purposely blows up another huge icon like the World Trade Center (regardless of which country it occurs in) and causes even just one casualty (not to mention hundreds or thousands of lives), are you going to call that some kind of %26quot;Man-Caused Disaster%26quot;? Or an outright act of Terrorism?
Is calling Terrorism a %26quot;Man-Caused Disaster%26quot; similar to calling a Garbage Man a %26quot;Sanitation Engineer%26quot;?
Why would anyone WANT to put a politically correct name on Terrorism? Are we trying to not offend Terrorists by calling them something less terrible-sounding? I think they WANT to sound as terrible as they can, right? Are we trying to diffuse Bad Bart by calling him %26quot;Not-so-Bad Bart%26quot;....%26quot;Confused Bart%26quot;....or %26quot;Excuse-him-because-he can%26#039;t-help-himself Bart%26quot;?
When you think of a %26quot;disaster%26quot;, don%26#039;t you think of something that occurs naturally or in the natural world, albeit unusual? By changing terrorism into something that is a %26quot;disaster%26quot;, is the underlying message that these horrific acts are just a natural consequence of different factions of mankind existing and interacting on the same planet, therefore are to be %26quot;understood%26quot;? Do we really want to %26quot;understand%26quot; when terrorists purposely kill thousands of innocent people to strike terror into the hearts of people they perceive as their enemy because they may not believe in the same God or worship in the same church?
Is Napolitano just parroting Obama, or was the term %26quot;Man-Caused Disaster%26quot; her brilliant idea for putting a cute little pink bow on murder and mayhem?
For the news story, see this link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5095…|||Terrorism itself is really a policy created by one group with the intention to intimidate and invoke feelings of %26quot;terror%26quot; in another group. Terrorism is almost always used to prove an idealogical point and is aimed at innocents, non-combatants, third parties, etc.
In 1988, the US Army had over 100 different definitions of the word “terrorism.%26quot; Today, no doubt, there are hundreds more. Because of the wide range of definititions around the world, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism.
The word “terrorism” is also VERY politically and emotionally charged, which adds to the difficulty in defining the word. While, we all believe that 9-11 was an act of terrorism (in a physical sense), one could also argue that the US Government uses terrorism. Posessing nuclear weapons while disallowing enemy nations to posess the same defenses is likely viewed as terrorism by those enemy nation%26#039;s people. We hope that out ever-present eminent threat will terrify them (terrorism). The media also practices a form of terrorism when they force unattainable beauty standards upon average people, then use scare tactics like, %26quot;You%26#039;ll never find true love if you%26#039;re overweight%26quot; or %26quot;Your partner won%26#039;t be happy with you if you don%26#039;t use Extenze.%26quot;
While I don%26#039;t love the term %26quot;Man-Caused Disaster,%26quot; I do feel that %26quot;terrorism%26quot; is too broad a term to use for any individual physical attack. Unfortunately, there are already too many %26quot;Man-Caused Disasters%26quot; that have nothing to do with terrorism, such as The Dust Bowl, Love Canal, and Britney Spears.
What I can%26#039;t understand is: Why demonize men by being gender-specific in the new title for terror? While women are socialized to be passive and non-agressive, you can%26#039;t exclude women from terrorism. Women are just as capable of having terrorist ideaology as men.
We simply can%26#039;t get away from the term %26quot;terrorism%26quot; because it is now part of our vernacular. I guess, in the end, I don%26#039;t understand the purpose of this new title for terrorist acts. If it%26#039;s to sugar-coat another bad, scary thing in our world, big mistake. If it%26#039;s to be more specific when talking about terrorism, it%26#039;s a good thought. Though, they haven%26#039;t gotten it yet, and they may just be tilting at windmills. Should we be spending time fighting the word %26quot;terrorism?%26quot; What%26#039;s next, WMDs are %26quot;extinguishment devices?%26quot;|||I%26#039;m a Brit, so not my concern really. But seems like a profound load of bollocks to me.
