Who is a Terrorist

So we have a definition of terrorism. The thing to do now, it would seem, would be to go out and point out terrorists. The problem is that our definition of terrorism is not shared. When the United States calls someone a terrorist, they aren't using my definition of the word (largely because I only came up with it a few days ago and they've been calling people and organizations terrorists for as long as I can remember). Remember all that stuff I said about hard and fast definitions? Of course not. But suffice to say that there isn't one here.

I just spent ten (or so, depending on how fast you read) minutes of your life to tell you something which I'm now saying is meaningless. Do you want those minutes back? They're mine now. But I'll give you something in return: the reason I brought up "terrorist" in the first place was so I could show one high-profile instance of people assuming there is a hard and fast rule for something where there is none. I won't insult your intelligence by listing the various misapprehensions people have about terrorists; my purpose is not to espouse a political agenda anyway. My point is that the construction of policy, in this case the "War on Terrorism," around areas as gray as this one might be a mistake.

Policy is never hard and fast; the real world doesn't take kindly to hard and fast. But terminology has to be hard and fast; we use specific words and phrases to attempt to remove ambiguity. A fools quest, perhaps, but that is the purpose behind the use of terminology such as "terrorist." I don't mean using the word in rhetoric or writing; when you declare war on something, you'd better have a good idea what it is. That's where policy meets terminology; gray arising from black and white, if you will.

Before I am accused of partisan activities, let's look at another example: the "War on Poverty." Policy governs the fighting of this "war," but the enemy is hard and fast - poverty. I won't go through the rigmarole to prove that the definition of "poverty" is just as problematic as "terrorism." But until someone comes out with a hard and fast definition of what it means to be poor, the war can't start.

I'm not accusing anyone of not having a hard and fast definition of terrorism or poverty, but we should ask ourselves whether:

1. The policy definition is one with which we agree.
2. The policy definition has been applied universally.

For example, supposing our definition of terrorist is in fact the government definition (not a chance; it's far too simple, which is another kettle of fish altogether), can we apply it universally? Do Muslim extremists, regularly called terrorists by their own mothers, qualify in all cases? How about people fighting in Iraq? Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay? Cuban refugees in Miami? Unborn babies? Abortion doctors? Catholic priests? Democrats? I think I've mentioned enough hot-button issues for today.

I'm not going to answer my own question because that's not my point. You have to look at applications of the rules behind policy to eliminate that "it's all relative" feeling we all too often get when faced with real-world issues. Find out the axioms and you will understand the rest, as we might say if we were logicians (and we didn't think that the plural of axiom is axia, something about which I'm on the fence). If you don't like the results of an axiom, don't waste time arguing about the results. Attack the axiom.

This last has students of logic shaking their heads in disgust, because you don't have to defend axioms. They are self-evident. Indeed, if the beginning of the PATRIOT Act said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that terrorists are individuals or groups who..." it would be a lot easier to read, for one thing.

This post is getting disjointed. We shall adjourn for now.

The L Words

I'm not talking about some religious or racial defamation using an "L." No, I'm talking about "lie" and "lay." I don't make it a point to preach on grammatical subjects, as I am not immune to my own censure, but these two get me because:

1. People use them incorrectly in locations which should have been studiously checked by editors.
2. Using these words incorrectly is not something one can excuse from a simple lack of grammatical knowledge or spelling.

Let me elaborate. I accept the fact that people can't figure out apostrophes, and that people use the word "nauseous" to mean "nauseated," and even that "impact" has become a verb at some point when I wasn't paying attention. The first is simple ignorance, the second and third are natural lingual evolution. "Lie" and "lay," on the other hand, are things people think they are doing right. E.g.:

• Play it as it lays.
• Lay down and go to sleep.
• You just want to lay down and die.

These are all things which are perfectly reasonable things to write in newspapers, say on television, and they even worm their way into books. So they must be right. Right?

Wrong, actually. They are all using the wrong word. But people don't see it that way. "What's the big deal," you say.

Easy. "Lay" is a transitive verb. I know I said it wasn't a mistake of grammar, but I lied. Of course, you wouldn't say, "I know I said it wasn't a mistake of grammar, but I laid." Laid what? If you can ask that question, you're dealing with a transitive verb, a verb that takes an object as a target of its action. "Lie," on the other hand, is intransitive. You don't lie something.

The problem arises from the fact that "lay" is also the past tense form of "lie." Oh, our wacky language, English. But the progression for these two verbs is:

I lie down, I lay down an hour ago, I have lain down in the past.

I lay eggs, I laid eggs an hour ago, I have laid eggs in the past.

"Lie, lay, lain," as opposed to "lay, laid, laid." Just for the record, this problem is so ingrained that I almost typed, "lay, laid, lain," just now.

Why do I bring this problem up? It's a relatively minor issue (mostly of grammar, as I lied about earlier, using another verb "lie") which doesn't seem to matter. People know what you mean when you say it, so what difference does it make?

All the difference in the world, actually. Unlike the "evolution of language" arguments for the misuse of certain words, or the confusing series of rules surrounding apostrophes (although I still think the rules are hard and fast enough to warrant correct usage), "lie" and "lay" are two different words with two different meanings governed by one extremely simple rule: "lay" is something you do to something, whereas "lie" is something you do yourself. In everyday conversation, we might make mistakes, and that's okay, but when Oprah, in her opening monologue, is using the wrong word in a context which is completely unambiguous, when lyrics to popular songs use the wrong word, when newspapers, magazines, and books, supposedly rigorously edited, allow not just individual verbal malfeasance but seem to not be aware a distinction between the two words exists, then we have a problem, Houston. Hard, fast, and only one simple sentence long. Get it right.

As a closing remark, I believe the problem stems from the nursery rhyme/prayer: "Now I lay me down to sleep..." Before I get any spittle-flecked comments accusing me of misleading people, the grammar in the rhyme is totally correct. "Now I lay down to sleep..." would not be. Why? I am laying myself down, giving the verb and object, and thus am using the verb correctly. This is a convoluted expression which doubtless has given rise to the belief that "lie" and "lay" are the same word. But it's not that complicated, it's a poem, and it's right, so using it as an excuse is feeble at best.

Terrorists Defined

So what exactly are terrorists. Let's go to the definitions:

Wiktionary:

1. One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; originally applied to an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
2. Anyone who uses terror as a weapon in a political struggle, frequently in an attempt to coerce a more powerful opponent, such as a government.

To Wiktionary's credit (rather to their desire to please everyone, which is foolish) they do say also:

The use of the label "terrorist" is often controversial or subjective, since one person's terrorist may be another's freedom fighter, and vice versa.

Sadly, the folks at Wiktionary (all 6 billion of them) fail to realize that "freedom fighter" is not a mutually exclusive term; viz:

[A] person involved in armed conflict against an oppressive government etc; an insurgent, rebel or insurrectionist.

So the definition of "freedom-fighting terrorist," according to Wiktionary anyway, would then be:

Anyone who uses terror as a weapon in a political struggle against an oppressive government.

There, is everyone happy? No, actually, I'm not. Aside from the fact that I had to fix the spelling of "oppressive," the use of "terror," a part of the word "terrorist," in that word's definition is forcing us to define "terror" as well. Here goes:

1. Extreme or intense fear.
2. Something that causes such fear.

By this definition, by the way, a terrorist could be said to be a terror, circular logic if I've ever heard it.

So now we have a person who uses fear as a weapon. Let's face it, Fenderson: that's not much of a definition. Perfectly international-law-abiding armies use fear as a weapon. I think we can rule out Wiktionary as a primary source in this discussion.

Google:

One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.

www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm

Intimidation is the only real addition we get here. Terrorists are not said to absolutely have to wear civilian garb, and therefore that statement becomes extraneous to the question. So we have someone who uses intimidation and violence to achieve political objectives. No dice; we're still talking about armies. Next

Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.

www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styleandsubstance/glossary.html

Not much of a definition at all. See my upcoming article on Google not being a dictionary. But here we are supposed to restrict our use of the word "terrorist" to non-governmental people and/or organizations. That's an interesting point that I may come back to later. But the kicker is "against civilian or noncombatant targets." Now we're getting somewhere. Our revised definition:

A person (we'll stick to the singular) who uses the fear created by violence toward noncombatant targets to accomplish a military or political goal.

The next definition I think we can dismiss out of hand:

a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Why, you ask? Well, radical is a subjective term, and we're trying to avoid those for the sake of people's sensibilities (and also because I'd like to prove a point). "Usually" is a warning flag, as is "often" simply because they aren't hard and fast, and we're looking for the hardest, fastest definition we can get. Otherwise, why play the game?

The last definition is from Wikipedia, and we've already seen what the masses have to say on the subject, not to mention the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. So that's out as well.

Dictionary.com:

a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

Helpful, yes? Let's see what they have to say on the subject of "terrorism."

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

This is slightly more helpful, albeit from a slightly different source at the bottom of the page. But it essentially confirms the (highly restricted) definition we've developed. To whit:

A person who uses the fear created by violence or the threat of violence toward noncombatant targets in a calculated manner to accomplish an ideological (this folds military, religious, political, etc. into one word) goal.

Think that's good enough? If not, tell me about it. We'll break here, as I think this article has already demonstrated just how many oddball definitions of this one word there are out there.