Spin

I heard this argument on Democracy Now. Its relevant as we define what terrorism is. The presenter was Norman Finklestein professor of political science at DePaul University in Chicago.

As a disclaimer I do not support or condone terrorism. I write this to point out how the wording of our news plays a crucial part in how we judge current events. The argument goes like this

A suicide bomber gets on a bus. In the process of blowing up the bus and him or herself, kills twenty innocent people, women and children, all civilians and in no way connected to the military.

A moment later a powerful country drops a 500 pound bomb in the middle of a city, intending to assassinate a military enemy. In the process of dropping the bomb, fifty innocent civilians are killed, women and children, all of them not connected to the military.

The suicide bomber is considered the terrorist.

The country dropping the 500 pound bomb is going after an enemy in a military operation and in the process unfortunately and regrettably kills innocent bystanders. The country may even issue formal apologies to the world community. In fact we have a tacit agreement in this scenario to allow this to occur with the understanding that it is necessary, although regrettable.

Suppose we exchange a few words in an attempt to redefine what is expressed above.

The suicide bomber wrote a note claiming that all he or she intends to do is blow up an empty bus, and not kill anyone or anything. Their note states that it was unfortunate and regrettable that innocents might simultaneously be killed. This would amount to an apology. The suicide bomber uses the same language as the country that drops the 500 pound bomb to define the actions taken and the results of its actions.

According to our present understanding, if innocent life is regrettably taken in a war maneuver, its alright as long as we separate the intent which is to kill an enemy, from the result which are the deaths of dozens of innocents. We accept this definition. The question is, when the suicide bomber presents the same argument, the intent to destroy the bus as an object only, and the results, dozens of innocents are killed, how does this differ from the country? Both have expressed the same intent which is to kill a military object, and both have expressed regret at the results which is the regrettable loss of innocent human life.

A country may routinely drop bombs in areas where innocents are killed. Its hard to imagine that sophisticated military people are not aware of the presence of innocents given the degree of precision in all aspects of what they do. They may routinely issue apologies for this collateral damage. We do not think of them as terrorists, yet they are killing innocent people, knowingly.

The language used does a lot to alter how perceptions of an event are understood and judged. It is a hard thing to be aware of this and hard to recognize.

Understanding that modern governments use experts to work with nuanced words and perceptions in the hope of winning a particular understanding from the common folk is key. They carefully dissect and reconstruct words in order to affect a desired reaction and they may do this in two directions. The first to ease and create acceptance for their actions, and the second to amplify the negativity and repulsiveness of the enemy's actions.