1 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Response to Mr. Pipes on avoiding the term "terrorist"

Reader comment on item: I Give Up: There Is No Terrorism, There Are No Terrorists

Submitted by Ronald Dolgin (United States), Jun 2, 2015 at 18:10

Dear Mr. Pipes,

I have another perspective here. I suggest one is not required to defend Israel and the United States from accusers who call them and the west terrorists. What brought you to argue about that is not quite clear, so I am curious how that came up. The argument against the term was political by the current US administration as I heard them. Sadly, their aversion to the term amounted to defense and support of attackers who are using terror as a political weapon. A suicide attack on a military base by terrorists may be by definition an act of war, but also terrorism.

As for your advice to your readers to drop it, I do not follow that although I respect and defer to your authority and expertise. But, I do not accept the authority of BBC, who have been shown to be biased and corrupted regarding Israel and their enemies. Further, there is no requirement to find a single definition of terrorism since there are multiple facets and subcategories; although, not all correct or useful. Those who defend terrorism as justified in our current world environment only gain when given deference, as after all, it is their goal to normalize their homicidal, suicidal attacks and accrue support by others avoidant submission to their claims to dominance and legitimacy.

That push to make normal ones preversion is almost universal, Specifically, in this case the perverse is the driven nihilistic genocidal impulse to wipe Israel and Jews off the face of the earth. That is the modern contextual domain of the term, whatever the BBC, Jimmie Carter, and the rest may say. It is war as well.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Daniel Pipes replies:

I am not accepting the authority of the BBC, just citing it to explain why this term terrorism has outlasted its utility.

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Response to Mr. Pipes on avoiding the term "terrorist" by Ronald Dolgin

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)