Dangerous Redefinition of ‘Terrorism’
Exclusive: “Terrorism” is a word of condemnation,
referring to the coldblooded killing of civilians to advance a political
cause. But U.S. pundits and officials have blurred its meaning to
cover attacks on American soldiers in foreign lands, a word game that
can contribute to more wars, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The
classic definition of terrorism is the intentional killing of civilians
to make a political point, as in planting bombs near the finish line of
a marathon or crashing commercial jetliners into buildings filled with
office workers. Yet, the mainstream U.S. media has broadened the
definition to include killing U.S. soldiers or allied troops even those
operating in foreign lands.
For instance, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman on Wednesday cited
as a supposed example of “Iran’s terrorism” the bombing of the Marine
base in Beirut in 1983, “believed to be the handiwork of Iran’s cat’s
paw, Hezbollah.” And Friedman is hardly alone in citing the Marine
bombing in 1983 as “terrorism” along with Iran’s support for Shiite
militias who fought the American occupying army in Iraq last decade.
