Yes

by Dee Holder

Created on: March 28, 2010

Before I answered this question I decided to look up the definition of terrorist.  I found that terrorism is a term that is rather hard to define.  I did not find this surprising.  The reason I went looking for the definition is that my subjective response to the title is that the term tends to be used against certain kinds of people and not others, that the term has more to do with the person being described than with the action that was ascribed to them.  This tends to be true even if the action discussed is equivalent in the number of deaths and scare factor. 

Thus a Muslim man that shoots his coworkers is a terrorist ( Hood Shooter Tried to Contact al Qaeda Terrorists Officials ...), while a white Christian male who flies his plane into a building ( Angry with IRS, Austin man flies plane into building San Antonio ...) is angry and for many white christian males who don't work for the IRS, justifiably so.

This is a little like way the terms "looting" vs "finding" are used depending on the person doing the action:

"........http://news .yahoo.com/photo/050 830/480/ladm10208301 530 (picture of black man)

"A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store in New Orleans on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005. Flood waters continue to rise in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina did extensive damage when it made landfall on Monday. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)"

http://news.yahoo.co m/photo/050830/photo s_ts_afp/050830... (picture of white couple)

"Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store after Hurricane Katrina came through the area in New Orleans, Louisiana. (AFP/Getty Images/Chris Graythen)"

Very often the way certain terms like looting vs finding, rioting vs protesting, and terrorist vs militant, are used in the media depends on who is being described doing the action. 

If they are similar to the majority population where the story is being reported, then the actions are viewed in a more positive light than if the perpetrator is a person from a different religion, race or country. 

Identifying with the person doing the activity makes one less likely to view it as a terrorist act as opposed to the unfortunate actions of a justifiably (even if the actions themselves are not justifiable) angry person.

I found it interesting that in this Wikipaedia article, while the acts that Mcveigh did were considered acts of terrorism, his discription did not include the term "terrorist":

"......The Oklahoma City bombing occurred on April 19, 1995 when American militia movement sympathizer Timothy McVeigh, with the assistance of Terry Nichols, destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City.[1] It was the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11 attacks in 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680.[2][3] The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen–block radius,[4] destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings.[5] The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage.[6]......"

Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet when we go to the September 11 attacks the definition of the attackers is as follows:

"....The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.[1][2..."

September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Timothy McVeigh is a milita movement sympathizer, while the September 11 hijackers are terrorists.  I am not arguing that the second are not terrorists, but that the former should be described as one as well.

In the article I eventually found in Wikipedia (Definition of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), it was identified that the basic problem with the media using the term 'terrorist' is that there is as yet no hard definition of the term. 

Lacking that, the term tends to be used more with certain groups than with others and sometimes with unfounded bias.  While a good definition of terrorism is lacking, the consequences for those accused or convicted of it are not ambiguous.

If convicted of it they are treated more harshly, countries can be invaded and attacked if it is accused of harboring terrorists and individuals can be hunted down and summarily killed if they are accused of belonging to a terrorist group.

When the public hears the term 'terrorism", the people accused of it become less than human in their eyes.  No thought is given to why the terrorist might be doing what they do.  It is assumed that these are evil people and that they are acting only because they are evil and bad and for no other reason. 

Governments can then justify using high levels of violence against them and even if civilians are caught up in the crossfire the public accepts that because 'those' people are all terrorists anyway. 

Sometimes the term Terrorist is linked with a specific population.  The media often uses the term Islamic Terrorism, a term I find interesting as I hardly ever hear the terms; Christian Terrorist, or Catholic Terrorist, or Protestant Terrorist, widely used in the news. 

I have not heard the term pro life terrorists, or racist terrorists in the mainstream media, even though the actions of extremist members of all these groups have at one time or another done activities that could be defined as terrorism and in some circles are already considered terrorist groups. 

On the other hand I have heard the term eco terrorism, and the Black panthers are now considered a terrorist group. 

If the media is to use the term terrorist, there should be strict criteria as to when and how it is used.  It should be used equally regardless of the race or religion of the person/people being described. 

The way it is being used now is subject to bias.  It is used more with certain groups than others and on occasion to inflame anger against a group for political gain. 

I think that the term should only be used for those that like the 911 hijackers of Timothy McVeigh.  For people who deliberately use the fear caused by killing or hurting a large number of people, or the credible threat of doing so to advance a political or moral agenda. 

I don't think that economic damage should qualify for this, but this is a personal belief as I don't think losing an empty building is morally on the same level as losing a building full of people. 

I say this because I don't place eco terrorists on the same level as Timothy McVeigh as most of them never harm humans, while I do place violent anti abortion protesters, or violent liberals like the Unibomber on the same level.  But perhaps that is simply bias on my part?

I think we should consider all these people as criminals, all the eco protesters, anti abortion, pro choice, religious sects, and other groups that are mostly peaceful but that have idiots within their ranks are not terrorist groups. 

I think the term terrorist should be reserved for those idiots that then go out and kill large numbers of people for these ideological ideas.  And yet as I write this I think, but what about mass murderers, are they not terrorists? 

What about the kids that shoot up schools, or the lone gunmen that go around shooting people randomly?  Are they not terrorists too?  What about militant groups violently trying to overthrow oppressive regimes are they not terrorists too?  

And what about war?  War by it's very definition is a terrorist act.  The aim is to use violence to force the other party to stop/start doing something that you want.  Why is the killing of civilians by a regular army unit not considered a terrorist attack, but the same action by an irregular militia is considered terrorism?

Based on these thoughts I have to say that the term "terrorist" should only be used sparingly by the media and it should be reserved for those acts that most people, regardless of how sympathetic they are to the 'cause', can look at it and agree that it is a terrorist act and the term should be used equally for all racial and ethnic groups that do these crimes. 

Ideally, the media should make the effort to accurately describe the person/people doing these crimes and explain what groups they belong to and what they are fighting for or against. 

Using the term terrorist is in a media a cop out.  They get more readers by using it, they don't have to explain what and who these people are and they get people emotionally invested in the story with a single word. 

They don't have to make the readers uncomfortable by explaining how our actions as a group might be increasing the number of people who are angry with us as a group, because after all, Terrorists are just evil people who do bad things just because they want to.

Learn more about this author, Dee Holder.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.