{"id":400043,"date":"2019-03-18T01:25:03","date_gmt":"2019-03-18T00:25:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/what-is-terrorism-nyt-asks-but-offers-no-answers\/"},"modified":"2019-03-18T01:25:03","modified_gmt":"2019-03-18T00:25:03","slug":"what-is-terrorism-nyt-asks-but-offers-no-answers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/what-is-terrorism-nyt-asks-but-offers-no-answers\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018What Is Terrorism?\u2019 NYT Asks\u2014but Offers No Answers"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Joshua Cho<\/b><\/p>\n

\"NYT:<\/p>\n

The New York Times<\/strong> story (3\/7\/19<\/a>) called the query in the headline a “fundamental question”\u2014but never gave readers anyone’s definition of “terrorism.”<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cWhat is terrorism, and who is a terrorist?\u201d the New York Times <\/b>(3\/7\/19<\/a>) asked in a recent report on the hindering of peace negotiations between the United States government and the Taliban in Afghanistan\u2014without suggesting any possible answers to these questions. When the headline of a story literally includes the phrase \u201cBig Question: What Is Terrorism?\u201d you might think it would offer at least one plausible definition proposed by any party or individual involved in these discussions. But not a single definition is suggested by anyone in the report, written by Mujib Mashal.<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t the first time in the Times<\/b>\u2019 propagandistic coverage of the War on Terror that the paper has raised the question without attempting to answer it; a 2005 piece \u00a0(8\/14\/05<\/a>) whose headline included the big question, \u201cWhat Is Terrorism?,\u201d also didn\u2019t propose any definitions either.<\/p>\n

In its recent story, the Times <\/b>reported that the current snag in negotiations has to do with US negotiators insisting that the Taliban promise not to allow Afghanistan to be used by terrorist groups (implying that the Taliban should promise to abolish itself, since the Times<\/b> also mentions that US leaders like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo consider the Taliban to be a terrorist group). The Taliban is reportedly balking, \u201csaying there was no universal definition of terrorism,\u201d but would promise not to allow Afghanistan to be used as a launching pad for international attacks.<\/p>\n

While \u201cterrorism\u201d is notoriously difficult to define<\/a> by scholars and journalists, the Times <\/b>has admitted in other places that it and other outlets tend to say whatever law enforcement wants them to say in domestic cases (3\/22\/18<\/a>): \u201cFor the most part, journalists tend to follow the lead of law enforcement on whether to call a crime an act of terrorism.\u201d<\/p>\n

While there\u2019s no reason to treat the United States military\u2019s Guide to Terrorism in the 21st Century <\/i>definition of terrorism (8\/15\/07<\/a>) as authoritative, its emphasis on the motivations<\/i> of terrorists rather than their identities<\/i> is useful in several ways. It defines terrorism as \u201cthe calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological.\u201d It\u2019s the exact opposite<\/i> of the standard that the corporate media has consistently pursued in favor of sensationalist and racist coverage throughout the War on Terror, emphasizing the identity of the perpetrators, rather than their motivations (FAIR.org, <\/b>3\/29\/18<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"Nelson<\/p>\n

Fifteen years after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Nelson Mandela was still officially a “terrorist”<\/a> in the eyes of the US government.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Although the Guide<\/i>\u2019s definition suffers from not distinguishing between politically motivated violence against civilians and insurgent guerrilla actions against the military forces of foreign occupiers and oppressive governments\u2014a blurring that can lead to absurd designations, like Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress being categorized as terrorists by the US government until 2008 (NBC<\/b>, 12\/7\/13<\/a>). But its emphasis on the motives for violence allows it to be used to measure the United States\u2019 own actions by making the nationality, ideology, military might and skin color of terrorists irrelevant considerations.<\/p>\n

Foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky has observed (in Hegemony or Survival<\/i>) that the primary reason even official definitions are avoided is that (if universally applied) it would inevitably follow that the United States is \u201ca leading terrorist state,\u201d which would blow apart the conventional thesis that terrorism is a \u201cweapon of the weak\u201d rather than \u201cprimarily a weapon of the powerful.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Detail<\/p>\n

A US-supplied textbook<\/a> taught Afghan children how to count\u2014and kill.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

One would never get the impression that the United States government is a leading sponsor and perpetrator of terrorism from the Times<\/b>\u2019 report. No mention is made of the United States\u2019 history of supporting and arming the mujahideen fighters (the forerunners of Al Qaeda and ISIS) in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 1980s (Salon<\/b>, 11\/17\/15<\/a>), or of its history of supplying Afghan children with textbooks containing violent images and militant Islamic teachings (Washington Post<\/b>, 3\/23\/02<\/a>).<\/p>\n

From the article, one would also never find out that the Afghanistan War is in violation of the UN Charter (Guardian<\/b>, 8\/23\/17<\/a>), and that the United States has no legal right to insist or impose any conditions on the Afghan people when it euphemistically refers to the illegal invasion as a \u201cmilitary action,\u201d which would legitimate violent resistance against an occupying force or aggressor, regardless of whether or not one considers the Taliban to be a legitimate, representative force of the Afghan people.<\/p>\n

FAIR (9\/30\/16<\/a>) has documented the irony of corporate media expressing no concern over exposing the United States, via \u201cfree trade\u201d agreements\u2019 Investor\/State Dispute Settlement provisions, to lawsuits from foreign corporations against regulations that undermine corporate profits\u2014while simultaneously abhorring legislation that would make it easier for 9\/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia on the grounds that it would expose the United States to foreign lawsuits for the terrorism it commits abroad. Such blatant double standards and implicit admissions over what constitutes terrorism make it hard to dismiss conclusions that \u201cterrorism\u201d is merely a \u201cmeaningless propaganda term,\u201d cynically deployed by the corporate media to advance American foreign policy (Intercept<\/b>, 6\/19\/15<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The Times <\/b>reports that the Taliban seeks to avoid providing a definition of terrorism because it is a \u201csensitive and existential\u201d issue for the group, as it \u201cstrikes at the core of the ideological narrative\u201d they want to propagate. One could also argue that the Times<\/b> and the rest of corporate media scrupulously avoid giving strict definitions of terrorism\u2014even in articles explicitly about what terrorism is\u2014because it is a sensitive and existential issue for US foreign policy, in the Middle East and elsewhere.<\/p>\n

A serious discussion about terrorism that would permit questions over whether aspects of American foreign policy can qualify as terrorism would strike at the core of the media\u2019s own preferred ideological narrative, and would jeopardize the United States\u2019 basis for the War on Terror, since its credibility depends on the unchallenged assumption that the United States is not a terrorist state.<\/p>\n

\n

You can send a message to the New York Times<\/strong> at letters@nytimes.com<\/a> (Twitter<\/strong>:@NYTimes<\/a>). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.<\/em><\/p>\n