Recent posts I’ve written at CiF Watch about the Guardian’s appalling use of the term “politicalÂ prisoner” to characterize violent Palestinian terrorists who murdered, or attempted to murder, innocent civilians proved warranted on these two separate occasions.
Our efforts to secure the definition of the term — which conventional wisdom understands as ‘those who are imprisoned for their political beliefs’ -Â represents an attempt to fight back against the manipulation of language in service of the extreme ideological agenda held by the Guardian and their fellow travelers.
Similarly, Glenn Greenwald’s ongoing war against the term “terrorism,” which most who are not influenced by the far-left understand broadly toÂ refer to ‘premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents,’ should be understood as a broader battle against common sense and moral sobriety.
Here is a passage from his latest post at ‘Comment is Free’, on April 22, entitled ‘Why is Boston “terrorism” but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tuscon, and Columbine?:
The word “terrorism” is, at this point, one of the most potent in our political lexicon: it single-handedly ends debates, ratchets up fear levels, and justifies almost anything the government wants to do in its name. It’s hard not to suspect that the only thing distinguishing the Boston attack from Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and Columbine (to say nothing of the US “shock and awe” attack on Baghdad and the mass killings in Fallujah) is that the accused Boston attackers are Muslim and the other perpetrators are not. As usual, what terrorismÂ really means in American discourse — its operational meaning — is: violence by Muslims against Americans and their allies.
These sentiments are repeated in writing over the years. Here’s another quote by Greenwald, in aÂ post at Salon.com inÂ 2011:
Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean:Â violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target.
Here, in a post at Salon.com from 2010, Greenwald spells out his vision of how “terrorism” was co-opted by a conspiratorial political agenda :
The term [terrorism] now has virtually nothing to do with the act itself and everything to do with the identity of the actor, especially his or her religious identity.Â It has really come to mean: Â ”a Muslim who fights against or even expresses hostility towards theÂ United States, Israel and their allies.”
If we’re really going to vest virtually unlimited power in the Government to do anything it wants to people they call “Terrorists”, we ought at least to have a common understanding of what the term means. Â But there is none. Â It’s just become a malleable, all-justifying term to allow the U.S. GovernmentÂ carte blanche to do whatever it wants to …read more
Source: The Algemeiner