Last week, conservative columnist David Pipes seemingly coined a new phrase in the ongoing linguistic dispute over "terrorism," "man-made disasters," "Islamist," and others: he referred to the actions of the attempted Times Square bomber as having "jihadi intent."
While this is perhaps a slightly different take on the strict definition/usage of "terrorism," in that Pipes refers more directly to the motivations of the individual, it does beg the question of what precisely encompasses "jihadi intent," as opposed to simply "anti-U.S. sentiment," or simply various other "ideological/political sympathies." I am admittedly not entirely familiar with David Pipes (a friend forwarded me the article) but I am not sure the substitution of a new term into the terrorism debate will solve some of the issues Pipes is looking to address.
14 years ago
A list of the terms we're discussing in our study of the rhetoric of terror would prove instructive. Linguistic disputes are often dismissed as trivial or incidental, but as we're seeing, they are far from this. You've made a good start adding: man-made disasters, Islamist, and jihadi intent to terror and terrorism. What else should be on this list?
ReplyDelete