Not afraid to label ‘terrorism’

"The current discussion on terrorism needs to be redefined".

The current discussion on terrorism needs to be redefined.

When the atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki over 100,000 civilians were killed without warning. In the city of Hiroshima, many thousands of those that survived the initial blast found their way to the river in an effort to relieve the pain from their burns. This is where many more (thousands) died, their bodies clogging the river as their city burned into ruins.

This is commonly defined as an act of war.

When the United States invaded Iraq aproximatly 162,000 people were killed, 80 per cent of which were civilians.

This was defined as a pre-emptive strike.

In comparison, when a person detonates a bomb, it is now defined as an act of terrorism.

It is important that all acts of violent aggression are clearly defined as such and our perception of them is not blurred by labels.

During the 1950 to 1970 period the label “Communist” was used to define our enemy. Accusations of being a Communist could ruin careers. Vast sums of money were spent to stop the “Communist” threat.

Similarly the current label of terrorism is now being used to justify vast military and surveillance expenditures.

As for myself, I am not afraid of the label “terrorism,” however, I am very concerned with all acts of violent aggression and the way our society is reacting to them.

Dave Carter,

Castlegar