It has been noted for some months now that President Obama tends to use the phrase “extremists” or at worst “violent extremists” rather than “terrorists.” This has been a sharp contrast to the Bushian “War on terror” mantra, and naturally been used as a slam against Obama, as if he were endeavoring either to ignore threats against America or–even better–placate America’s enemies.
Normally I’m not a big supporter of the watering down of our language. In this instance, though, it seems incredibly obvious to me why Obama has embraced this change in terminology: It’s because there’s no reason for him to do the job of America’s enemies for them.
Being a terrorist isn’t just about blowing stuff and people up. It’s about getting people to live in a state of constant fear and edginess. Bush thoroughly cooperated with this mindset, readily speaking the language of terror during every speech, every debate, every public appearance, keeping Americans in a constant state of unease and war footing so that…well, so that he could stay in office, I suppose. Just as Cheney and would-be GOP presidential candidates continue to remind Americans why they should be terrified, doubtlessly delighting bin Laden and his ilk in the process. “Extremists,” even “violent extremists,” is simply a less scary term. Obama appears to have made the conscious decision not to encourage Americans to be in a constant state of fear. At the very least, he doesn’t seem to want to contribute to it through word choice that emphasizes terror, terror, terror. I think he deserves praise for that, not condemnation.
PAD
• 
.
What’s screwy is that he does use the words “terrorists” and “terror” when discussing these events. He just doesn’t use them enough for his critics I suppose.
.
And in some cases I agree with them. You can call something an “act of terror” and someone a “terrorist” without creating terror in the populace. Simply discussing something that has happened while using the frankest terms isn’t going to create terror.
.
What Bush and Cheney did (and Cheney still does) that was different was often discuss terrorist acts and terrorists in a manner to create additional terror. If they didn’t get their way with a bill or with a procedure it meant that terrorists would unleash a devastating attack on the heartland. If you criticized or disagreed with their methods you were guaranteeing the terrorists would win.
.
Obama can, and sometimes should, discuss terrorists and their acts in the starkest terms when discussing something that happened. That’s not remotely the same as talking about the mushroom clouds to come if the other side of the isle refused to give in on a point of ethics.
.
It won’t create additional terror in the population and it would take away a really rather stupid talking point that’s getting way too much play lately.
What Bush and Cheney did (and Cheney still does) that was different was often discuss terrorist acts and terrorists in a manner to create additional terror.
.
This was to be my thought on the matter, as well.
.
Under Bush, the word ‘terror’ was used to help them get their way.
Seconded. And even while I would occasionally refer to Bush and company as terrorists *because* of this practice, I tended to not do so so frequently as to water down the term.
But I’m afraid that when Congressman Pete King recently came out with his own criticism that the word “terrorism” needs to be used more, he convinced me to agree with him. Only, not in the way that he wants.
I’ve decided it’s time to start calling these people out. Bush, Cheney, King, Rick Warren, James Dobson, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, and all the rest, they actively push Americans’ buttons in order to try to make us fear and hate not just foreigners (regardless of guilt), but other Americans, for no other reason than to further their own political ambitions or legacies, and to manipulate the opinion of this country’s citizens in a negative manner. From here on out, as far as I’m concerned, that makes them Terrorists. And it doesn’t matter one whit that they haven’t actually hurt or killed anybody in the process.
Thank you for liberating me, Congressman King. I hope you choke on your unintended consequences.
Wildcat
I once read that the word ‘terrorist’ was originally coined to mean Robespierre and the other people in charge of the Reign Of Terror in post-Revolutionary France. Under that definition, Cheney and others like him who spread fear in order to maintain power and abolish traditional liberties are more deserving of the term than non-governmental warlords like bin-Laden.
There are people out there who refrain from using the term terrorism because of political correctness or moral relativism or other political reasons. There are people who think that terrorism should be treated as any other crime, prosecuting the guilty and that’s it. Obama is not one of these people, but somebody decided to associate him with this kind of thinking, and that’s the new talking point.
The term extremists is better because instead of focusing on one of the tools used by muslim extremists, i.e. terrorism, it focuses on who they are, extremists.
Just a minor correction — the President *is* treating those who perpetuate acts of terrorism as criminals. That’s what the trials in New York City are about. Not only is that the way it should have been all along, but it’s one of the primary things about which the “war solution” crowd have gotten bent out of shape.
Wildcat
“he President *is* treating those who perpetuate acts of terrorism as criminals.”
Yes, but he is not treating the whole phenomenon of Islamic terrorism as something that should be treated like crime, i.e. investigation and prosecution of the people directly involved in a specific act. He is using all the tools, legal, military, diplomatic, economic. He has strengthened the emphasis on the legal and diplomatic aspects compared to Bush, but he has not abandoned completely the other tools. But that’s how his opponents are trying to portray him.
.
Micha: “The term extremists is better because instead of focusing on one of the tools used by muslim extremists, i.e. terrorism, it focuses on who they are, extremists.”
.
And he discusses extremists and extremism quite often. But it is better to discuss a specific person who committed a specific act as a terrorist who committed an act of terrorism.
.
There are any number of people and groups in this country who are Christian and described quite regularly as extremists. They’ve never committed an act of terror however. They are not terrorist. If you use the same word for a man who blows up a cafe full of people that gets regularly used about a man who spits fire and brimestone speeches about gays and the moral failings of America… You paint a different picture in the minds of many.
.
The words “extremist” and “extremism” may be accurate in the general sense, but there are acts and people for whom those words are needed. They should be used and they should be used more often. By all means Obama should accurately discuss the overall phenomena as Islamic Extremism and their leaders (the cowards who seem to think that sacrificing themselves is just a bit too much to ask) as extremist. But he needs to use the words terrorist and terrorism where appropriate and maybe even a little more often than he does now.
.
To play some of the word games that (as Bill noted below) someone like Janet Napolitano insists on is as asinine as the drooling idiots on Fox News who are yet again trying to resurrect the term “homicide bomber” when discussing suicide bombers. Sure, you can say that it’s accurate, but it really is a meaningless term in the context of the conversation. The Unabomber was homicide bomber. What even he wasn’t was fanatical enough to sacrifice himself in a suicide bombing.
.
There are lots of extremists out there. Not all of them fully turn that corner into terrorism. The terms “terrorism” and “terrorist” are useful and, more importantly, accurate. They should be used and used more often.
Fair enough Jerry.
I suppose every term you use can (and is) manipulated by people from many different parts of the political spectrum. I suppose even Obama is being manipulative to a certain extent. But not the way that people from the right attribute to him.
Al Queda killed 3,000 in an unprovoked attack at the WTC.
Bush killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and is responsible for the death of over 4,000 Americans with his unprovoked invasion of Iraq.
I don’t think there is a contest as to who the bigger terrorist is.
Peter makes an interesting point but Jerry is correct–while Janet Napolitano stated that the administration was avoiding the term “terrorism” in favor of, oy, ““man-caused” disasters”, the fact is that Obama HAS used the term. The president’s recent speech on the Detroit incident even opens with a paragraph that uses “terrorist” twice and several more times in the rest of the speech.
.
So while it’s an interesting idea, I don’t know that he deserves praise for it, since he isn’t really following it. And frankly, I don’t think he should be blamed for that–after the attempted attack it was nothing on TV but “terrorist” “terrorism” “Bomb” “death” “blow up airplane” “barbecued testicles” and the like–it would have been ridiculous for the president to make a speech in that climate where he talked about “man-caused disasters”
.
“… Jerry is correct… “
.
Gee… Thanks…
.
I only get that said about me maybe once per year. You went and said it when we’re not even half way through January. What have I got to look forward to in 2010 now?
It’s my problem you peaked early? Pacing, my friend, it’s all about pacing.
AMEN brother.
I can’t comment too much on Obama, or even on Dubyah, but I CAN say that BLAIR unquestionably used the ‘terror’ phrases in order to keep the British population subjucated and under control. The list of civil liberties that have been quietly withdrawn in the name of ‘the war on terror’ is quite disturbing and virtually NO ONE has batted an eyelid.
“The list of civil liberties that have been quietly withdrawn in the name of ‘the war on terror’ is quite disturbing and virtually NO ONE has batted an eyelid.” You may have heard of an expression, “scared witless”? All too many North Americans (I’m including Canadians here) are demonstrating just what that means.
I’ve never been a admirer of using phrases like “war on terror”. It’s like declaring “war on poverty” in that you’re trying to make people funnel their time, passion, and resources against an abstract concept. However, using the phrase “War on Al Quaeda” presents a problem too. The phrase itself adds legitimacy to the organization. The phrase “Muslim Extremism” is a poor compromise because it once again comes back around to declaring war on an abstract idea. I don’t envy any president having to choose the words to frame the conflict.
(BTW, I’ve always felt the “war on drugs” declared by G.H.W. Bush, for whom I voted, similarly ill-advised.)
Talking to the American people like they’re adults? The very nerve of the man!
Jerry said:”There are any number of people and groups in this country who are Christian and described quite regularly as extremists. They’ve never committed an act of terror however. They are not terrorist.”
Does a body count mean your a terrorist? I grew up gay in a small town where the local preachers talked openly of their hatred against the homosexual lifestyle. News reports often features attacks on “secret” gay bars and clubs and gay men beaten or killed. I lived in a state of “terror” till I was old enough to leave the town on my own and had some money to do so. Arson, verbal abuse, physical abuse, mental abuse…but they didnt fly a plane into a building. Thoughts?
It kind of opens the door to too many situations–go to most inner cities and you will find neighborhoods where the people are legitimately living in a state of terror due to the actions of street gangs. are the Crips and the Bloods terrorists? Well, perhaps so, but if we start calling them that it kind of dilutes the whole meaning of terrorist and terrorism from what most people think it is.
.
I’m sympatico with where you’re coming from on this but I don’t see any benefit to it.
“but if we start calling them that it kind of dilutes the whole meaning of terrorist and terrorism from what most people think it is.”
Which would be a good thing. Most people think terrorism applies to external groups who attack “a country.” Terrorism is a tactic that can be implemented on a small, individual level too–including an American against another American. Simply put, it’s not limited to “us vs them.” It can easily be “us vs us” (think Timothy McVeigh, a US soldier; or any of the abortion clinic bombers and murderers of doctors). There’s more terrorism employed out there than simply by foreign paramilitary entities.
Gang-bangers are second rate mafia. The mafia used acts of terrorism to perfection. They’re not quite terrorist organziations per se (they did not seek national policy changes from Washington), but definitely used terrorist tactics to achieve their goals.
So I don’t think we’re diluting the definition here, but rather expanding it to include all uses of terrorist tactics.
Hey Chris,
I think the phrase “Impulsive Úšhølëš” sums it up nicely.
.
This phrase could apply to that other brand of terrorist as well. Let’s call them “Foreign Impulsive áššhølëš” and use “Domestic” for the brand you have described.
.
A US President using these terms would indicate that America is (back) on the right track.
M
Ahem.
Oklahoma City.
I don’t see how which word Obama or Bushes uses affects whether the citizenry will be in a constant state of fear. Words are just tools, and terrorism isn’t loaded with as much knee-jerk, cultural baggage as say, a racial epithet. It’s how you use ’em. Use an edged object to gut someone after you mug them, or perform surgery on them to save their life. The object can’t choose which to do; only the one holding it can. Obama doesn’t refrain from keeping the citizenry in fear because of which word he uses. He refrains from doing this because he’s Obama.
An interesting feature of the film BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE was Moore’s examination of the difference in gun deaths between the U.S. and Canada. It wasn’t due to poverty (Canada had much higher unemployment) or an abundance of guns (comparable, I believe). The biggest difference Moore found was that while Canadians are more relaxed, Americans were more terrorized, from the fear of criminals and home invasions to Bush promising another 9/11 if we didn’t do exactly what he said.
And, of course, back under Bush “…then the terrorists win” became a mantra for what would happen if America didn’t do exactly what he wanted. Outlaw torture? Then the terrorists win. Require a legal basis for wiretapping citizens? Then the terrorists win. Etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Treating terrorists as criminals is the SMART thing to do… hence the revulsion of the right. Bush legitimatized Al Qaida, Obama wants to reverse that. Terrorists are just murderers of innocent people. To make more of it than that is to inflate it, give it prominance, brand it with a slogan and logo that potential followers can rally around. ………….. If we called counterfeiters “economic terrorists” we would risk expanding the harm from just greedy fraudsters to also those who want to do damage for political purposes. It’s smart to just call them criminals and make no more of it–even if we did suspect a more elaborate purpose……………….. It’s not smart in the long run to make symbols of these killers. Terrorism is a relative term (it’s only terrorism when it’s done to you), but killing innocents is killing innocents and that means the same thing in every culture.
“Terrorists are just murderers of innocent people.”
No they are not. Terrorists have an ideology, an agenda, a message they promote, followers, supporters, recruits, etc. If a man kills his nana for the inheritance, you catch him, you being him to trial and he goes to jail. With terrorists you have a much bigger story.
“It’s smart to just call them criminals and make no more of it–even if we did suspect a more elaborate purpose”
No. Because you have to deal with the more elaborate purpose. Ignoring it would be irresponsible.
“It’s not smart in the long run to make symbols of these killers.”
They are symbols. That’s the whole point of terrorism.
“Terrorism is a relative term”
No it’s not. Killing is a relative term. It could be self-defense, or a justified retaliation and so forth. Terrorism is a tool with specific characteristics.
“but killing innocents is killing innocents and that means the same thing in every culture.”
Actually it doesn’t. Obviously the people who support Bin Laden have a different concept of innocence and justified homicide. And since Bin-Laden is not just a killer but am ideological leader, his opinion has an effect that may result in a Nigerian strapping a bomb in Amsterdam.
There was a study awhile back to most common ways that terrorists have been defeated. They looked at all the terrorist groups in modern times that are now defunct and tallied up which methods ended each one.
.
The most common method: Police work. Treating the terrorists like criminals was the most common way of getting rid of them. I believe the next most common method was legitimization, where the group was actually brought into the legitimate government and given a voice.
.
Using the military was pretty low on the list, it had a very poor success rate.
.
As far as ideology goes, terrorists are more than criminals. But for methodology, they’re definitely criminals. They operate like criminals and they are best defeated with police work. Declaring war on them sounds really nice, but it also sounds really nice in their recruitment campaigns and helps them more than it hurts them.
I would be very dubious of such a study. One case is not similar to another. Dealing with an organization like say The Weathermen is not the same as dealing with an organization like the Viet Kong. And the Viet Kong is not exactly the same as the Tamil Tigers. In the first case you have a small group working inside the US and made of Americans, with little outside support. In this case police work would be enough, but it would be absurd to negotiate with a small fringe group like that. The Viet Kong on the other hand was an organization that used terrorism as well as other methods in a larger military conflict. In their case using police would be insufficient while military and diplomatic methods would be appropriate.
Similarly legitimization might or might not work depending on the circumstances. There is no guarantee that a guerrilla organization will give up its military power base in exchange for legitimization, especially if that power base was useful and there is no incentive to give it up.
“Using the military was pretty low on the list, it had a very poor success rate.”
I don’t say you have to rely only on military force anymore than that you should rely solely on the police or solely on diplomacy.
“As far as ideology goes, terrorists are more than criminals. But for methodology, they’re definitely criminals.”
No. One of the main points of terrorism is propaganda. A terrorist act, even a failed one, has a purpose and effect that goes beyond the action itself.
“Declaring war on them sounds really nice, but it also sounds really nice in their recruitment campaigns and helps them more than it hurts them.”
Terrorists perceive of themselves as soldiers fighting a war regardless of what you think about them. You know what also helps them? The belief that they can orchestrate more attacks without fear of serious repercussions.
“No. One of the main points of terrorism is propaganda. A terrorist act, even a failed one, has a purpose and effect that goes beyond the action itself.”
.
And the best counter propaganda, by far, is that they’re just criminals. Not soldiers, not little guys taking on a much bigger foe in a massive struggle, just criminals. When the US glorifies these people, their recruitment goes up.
.
“Terrorists perceive of themselves as soldiers fighting a war regardless of what you think about them. You know what also helps them? The belief that they can orchestrate more attacks without fear of serious repercussions.”
.
That’s a strawman argument. Nobody said should go easy on them. There are over three hundred terrorists in American prisons right now. Treating them like criminals *includes* serious repercussions. Richard Reid got life without parole in supermax prison, that’s a much more serious repercussion than the glorious death in battle that these guys thing they’re going to get.
Terrorists perceive of themselves as soldiers fighting a war regardless of what you think about them.
And gang-bangers here in the States perceive themselves as “soldiers”, and even refer to each other as “soldiers”. Does that mean we should pit the 101st Airborne against the 31st Street Gangster Disciples?
The primary obstacle I’ve seen to previous attempts (under Bush I and Clinton) to treat terrorists as criminals has been that in the countries where the investigation must take place, the local government seems to have some sort of stake in elevating these punks to the status of “enemy”. (Perhaps they feel they might lose face if they called the group that blew up an important building “mere criminals”, as if they couldn’t keep their crooks under control?)
“That’s a strawman argument. Nobody said should go easy on them. There are over three hundred terrorists in American prisons right now. Treating them like criminals *includes* serious repercussions. Richard Reid got life without parole in supermax prison, that’s a much more serious repercussion than the glorious death in battle that these guys thing they’re going to get.”
You’re missing the point. The criminal model applies to people in your own country who commits an individual crime and then faces justice. But in the case of terrorism that’s not enough. You have people that are outside your country, sometimes in lawless areas, who belong to an organization that recruits and plans or even just inspires many future acts in many different places in relation to many different things and people and governments. The criminal model is not enough at this stage.
I wonder if any part of his verbage is to attempt to create a distinction between Muslims and Muslim Extremists?
.
Theno
Absolutely it is. Its extremely important that we create better relations with the many countries that have Muslim populations. Obama knows that and he’s trying to show those countries that we’re not idiot who lump all Muslims together.
.
What’s making it harder is those people in America who *are* idiots that lump all of them together.
In my mind, “extremist” has always been more a word to describe a *viewpoint,* while “terrorist” has been a word to describe an *action*. Again, this is mind of Spooon, so take it for what you will.
I can rather see why the President uses the word extremist, though. When most people hear the word terrorist, they automatically think muslim. And Obama wants to drive home the fact that it is the extremist muslim that are behind the terroristic acts, and that the average muslim wouldn’t necessarily condone such acts.
One of the key differences between terrorists and ordinary criminals is that terrorists are often supported by one or more nations in order to undermine other nations.
Hugo Chavez supports FARC in their attempts to rise hëll in Colombia. Arab nations support the Palestinians. Clearly, they’re not ordinary criminals. Clearly, police work is not enough. Diplomacy and/or military action may be necessary when other countries are using the terrorists as chess pieces in a global struggle.
It doesn’t mean I think Dubya was right in declaring war on Iraq. But to treat terrorism as just any other crime seems wishful thinking on the part of some liberals.