Redefining terrorism

Redefining terrorism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 4, 2006

By Joseph Farah

Have you noticed that when America declared war on terrorism, it immediately began to redefine the term.

Here's the way it works.

President Bush told the nations they were either with us or with the terrorists. Remember that speech? It may have been the high point of his administration.

But he didn't mean it.

The most recent proof is the suggestion within his administration that Syria be used to mediate the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict.

Bush's own State Department, which is no different than Bill Clinton's State Department or Jimmy Carter's State Department, classifies Syria as a terrorist-sponsoring nation. In fact, Syria sponsors Hezbollah, along with Iran.

Yet, the Bush administration actually suggested Syria mediate the dispute. This would be akin to having China mediate our dispute with North Korea. Oh, I forgot. The Bush administration suggested that, too.

What gives? Is Hezbollah no longer a terrorist organization? Is it no longer considered an enemy of the U.S. and the free world? Is it not indeed the largest terrorist organization in the world? Why is it that we no longer seek to destroy Hezbollah, but preserve it through mediation? And, even more bizarre, why do we consider using as a mediator a state sponsor of terrorism?

But there's more evidence America is redefining terrorism to avoid the harsh realities of the threat we face.

Last week, Muslim Naveed Avzal Haq, 30, took a 13-year-old girl hostage and began shooting up the Seattle Jewish Federation Center, killing one woman and injuring five others, including one who was pregnant. "I am a Muslim American," he shouted. "I am angry at Israel."

Not one newscast and not one news story (besides those in WND) labeled this terrorist act a terrorist act. It was a shooting. It was a "hate crime." It was a random act of violence" by a man not associated with any other organizations." On and on the euphemisms went.

But a 6-year-old schoolchild would recognize what happened in Seattle. It was terrorism.

We've seen this kind of denial before – and it has always been dangerous for America. It was the kind of denial that led directly to Sept. 11.

Quite frankly, terrorists weren't getting the ''credit'' they expected from major attacks like the Oklahoma City bombing and TWA Flight 800 and the first World Trade Center bombing. So they upped the ante. They raised the stakes.

No one could deny what Sept. 11 was. It was an overt act of undeniable terror – unspeakable terror, unimaginable terror.

Why do we deny terrorism when it is staring us in the face? Because it requires action – response. If we are not prepared to take action – to respond appropriately – we instinctively deny the reality of what has transpired.

Add to all this that ''terrorism'' was never the enemy any way. Terrorism, as many have pointed out, is a tactic, not an enemy. The real enemy is radical Islam. Terrorism is their tactic. If we don't recognize that fact, it should surprise no one that a Muslim fanatic can shoot up a Jewish center without anyone mentioning terrorism.

So President Bush, to his credit, responded after Sept. 11. But we're still paying the price for his lack of focus, his inability or unwillingness to define the enemy clearly, his desire not to hurt anyone's feelings or offend any ethnic or religious group.

But let's not resort to doublespeak. Let's not miss the forest for the trees. In our desire not to ethnically profile, do we have to give up all logic and common sense? Do we have to change the meaning of words? Do we have to put our heads in the sand?