SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The President Finally Uses the Word "Terror." So...

THE SPINE JANUARY 3, 2010

The President Finally Uses the Word "Terror." So Abdulmutallab Is No Longer an "Isolated Extremist." He Is a Muslim Terrorist.

BY MARTIN PERETZ

President Obama used the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" six times in his weekly address to the nation. I don't know how long it has actually been since he’s uttered those words. But my memory is that it's been a very long time. By using them, however, he was able to make, as it were, structural corrections, talking about Al Qaeda as "a network of violence and hatred" strung out "from East Africa to Southeast Asia, from Europe to the Persian Gulf." I don't know why he didn't include America in this litany. After all, there was 9/11 eight-and-a-half years ago, Detroit really only yesterday, and much in between. Maybe he was just crossing his fingers, hoping against hope.

The New York Times also tried to make its amends ... or, rather, was forced by circumstances into doing so. And, yes, its editorial also used the words "terrorism" and "terrorist," locutions it otherwise quite faithfully avoids, especially in its news reports, lest the opprobrium of ideological murder prejudice the readers of the Times against its practitioners. What the Times editorial does do--quite respectably, as it happens--is narrate the terrible sequence of screw-ups made by our intelligence services and, not just coincidentally, by the intelligence services of Great Britain and, God help us, of Nigeria and Yemen. We are in a very bad way when we have to think of Nigeria and Yemen as reliable partners in this deadly business. These are certainly not nation-states; they are barely countries. Don't ask us to count on them, please.

Still, for both Obama and the editors of the Times, these are improvements in their understanding of the real world. So the president has dropped "isolated extremist" from his dogmatic vocabulary. The fact is that, in the world of terrorists, there are no isolated extremists. The "Unabomber" may have been an isolated extremist. But Dr. Hasan certainly wasn't. His, in fact, was the modern (or post-modern) paradigm. He was not at all isolated. He was connected, at minimum, by the Internet, whose communities are maybe superficial, but stable, hortatory, and instructive. This world may seem infinite to poets and maybe even to astronomers. But it really is not. I can reach millions of you in seconds, and so can terrorists. They reach each other that way, too.

Stefan Zweig, the Austrian Jewish man of letters, wrote in his autobiography, The World of Yesterday, just before committing a double-suicide with his wife, "When bombs laid waste the houses of Shanghai, we knew of it in our rooms in Europe before the wounded were carried out of their homes." He called this the "new organization of simultaneity." This was an insight from 1942. Almost seventy years later, you do not have to be philosophically advanced to see the phenomenon of simultaneity. You can be moral primitives, like Osama bin Laden and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and still be able to mobilize the high mechanics (and the low) of multiple deaths.

If the president were truly sentient, he would not be content to enumerate the macrophysics of what we have done: "[O]ur progress has been unmistakable... [W]e've disrupted terrorist financing, cut off recruiting chains, inflicted major losses on Al Qaeda's leadership, thwarted plots here in the United States, and saved countless American lives." Yes, I suppose, all true. Some of this may have to be wrapped in the clouds. I do not insist on the right to know. Perhaps some especially fervent civil libertarians will go to law for discovery.

But what has been the animating motive for the terrorist efforts to dispose of Americans and Europeans, Hindus and Christians, Jews and non-believers, and, of course, Muslims, albeit from antagonistic or divergent sects--infidels and heretics, really--in the religious vocabulary? It is an ideological certainty laced through the Islamic tradition and the Islamic present. 

The 95 men and boys murdered at the volleyball massacre in Shah Hassan Kehl are together the debris of this culture. They are not widely mourned. Only their mothers mourn. Why are there not protests in every Muslim city in the world at this deranged harvest of life? Or in London and Dearborn? I'll tell you why. Because, in the minds of many, this mass killing was a mere tactic. Compare the silence (and the glee?) at what happened in Pakistan on that playing field to what happened almost everywhere after twelve Danish cartoonists published their imaginings of Mohammed.

This is not all we need to grasp. So, in rendering the gross and the mad, we must be truthful about the essentials and about the shadings. No, it is not everybody--not by a long shot. But it is plenty. We must know whom we are fighting. Alas, if we don't also know what we are fighting and what we are fighting for, we are fighting blind.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 66 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

66 comments

The NY Times allows itself to use the terms "terrorist", "terrorism", or "terror" as long as they are not dealing with attacks on Jews or Israel. When it comes to Israel, the proper terms are "militants", "attacks", "violence" etc.. A bit over a year ago, during the Mumbai attacks, the Times could not bring itself to use the "T" word for at least a day or two, and even then it couldn't bring itself to admit for at least several days after, that the attack on the Chabad House was specifically targeted and intentional. Draw your own conclusions. Just be intellectually honest about them. Unlike the NY Times. Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

January 3, 2010 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ginzy, Good point. The New York Times seemed to believe that during the last century that "all the news that's fit to print" didn't include any mention of the Holocaust; apparently its scotoma/animus continues during the 21st.

- malahat

January 3, 2010 at 6:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The president isn't "truly sentient"? I realize there may be some doubt about elderly senators and the like, but Obama has always seemed fairly awake and in tune with his surroundings.

- ironyroad

January 3, 2010 at 6:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I found this Wikipedia article on the New York Times and the Holocaust interesting, both for its content, and that, given the anti-Semitic revisionist hijacking I've recently noticed in many Wikipedia articles related to Israel, the Middle East, and Jews, it didn't seem to have been hijacked by anti-Semite revisionists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_and_the_Holocaust

- malahat

January 3, 2010 at 6:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The fallacy of Peretz' argument is that Obama used the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" at least 5 times in the remarks he made on December 28 in which he also used the term "isolated extremist." He also made reference in the December 28 remarks to finding and holding accountable others who were involved in the incident, thus belying any inference that he believed Abdulmutallab was acting alone. Peretz' argument is a canard.

- dhurtado

January 3, 2010 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bl462 "...given the anti-Semitic revisionist hijacking I've recently noticed in many Wikipedia articles related to Israel, the Middle East, and Jews,..." This "hijacking" as you call it has been going on for a while and it shows how unreliable the wikipedia project is. I have even noticed that in an entry about Saul Bellow, the writer, his book about Jerusalem was attacked by Noam Chomsky as if it were a major document. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Bellow#Criticism.2C_controversy_and_conservative_cultural_activism Wikipedia can't seem to stop any semi organized effort to denigate a people or a subject.

- jacksondyer

January 3, 2010 at 8:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

btw: I suspect that the entry on Bellow was written by no other than Norman Finkelstein the notorious antisemite anti Israel activist. Someone should write a book about antisemitic distortions on wikipedia.

- jacksondyer

January 3, 2010 at 9:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurtado “The fallacy of Peretz' argument is that Obama used the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" at least 5 times in the remarks he made on December 28 in which he also used the term "isolated extremist." He also made reference in the December 28 remarks to finding and holding accountable others who were involved in the incident, thus belying any inference that he believed Abdulmutallab was acting alone. Peretz' argument is a canard.” Marty may be wrong, or he may not, but how is the above a “fallacy?”

- jacksondyer

January 3, 2010 at 9:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks, JD.

- malahat

January 3, 2010 at 9:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty asserts that Obama's use of the word "terror" in today's speech means that Obama no longer believes that Abdulmutallab is an "isolated terrorist." He says: "President Obama used the terms 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' six times in his weekly address to the nation. I don't know how long it has actually been since he’s uttered those words. But my memory is that it's been a very long time." Well, Obama uttered those words in his December 28 remarks, in which he also referenced "isolated extremist." So the argument that the use of the words terrorism or terrorist in today's speech shows some change in Obama's views is a fallacy. It also shows supreme carelessness on the part of Peretz to claim that Obama has not used those words (terrorism and terrorist) for a "very long time" when he in fact used them 6 days ago in the very speech that Peretz has been criticizing.

- dhurtado

January 3, 2010 at 9:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So the argument that the use of the words terrorism or terrorist in today's speech shows some change in Obama's views is a fallacy." Even if you are right and I didn't look up his speech it is still not a fallacy. One can be wrong without being illogical.

- jacksondyer

January 3, 2010 at 10:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...Finally, the American people should remain vigilant, but also be confident. Those plotting against us seek not only to undermine our security, but also the open society and the values that we cherish as Americans. This incident, like several that have preceded it, demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist." I dunno, dhurt. If words mean anything, seems to me that when Obama used the phrase "isolated extremist" Occam's Razor would suggest that he was trying to communicate that the series of terrorist acts he was referring to were carried out by "isolated extremist(s)". Strikes me as another of Obama's "narratives", cut from the same solipsistic cloth.

- malahat

January 3, 2010 at 10:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and, I think it's telling that he used the word "incidents" rather than "terrorist acts" when he linked them to "isolated extremists", rather than "terrorists".

- malahat

January 3, 2010 at 10:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But it is indeed illogical to argue that Obama's use of the words "terrorism" and "terrorist" on January 3 means that he has changed his views since December 28 when he in fact used those same words on December 28.

- dhurtado

January 3, 2010 at 10:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not arguing that he changed his views, I'm pointing out that his initial views had to be changed.

- malahat

January 3, 2010 at 10:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And his initial views had to be changed because of the negative public reaction to his response and to Napolitano's comments - no one was buying the "isolated extremist" and "system worked" narrative, even if that's what he still believes (and I hope he doesn't).

- malahat

January 3, 2010 at 10:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b-- My last comment was directed to Jackson. But if words mean anything, let's look at Obama's words: "Good morning, everybody. I wanted to take just a few minutes to update the American people on the attempted TERRORIST attack that occurred on Christmas Day and the steps we're taking to ensure the safety and security of the country. The investigation's ongoing. And I spoke again this morning with Attorney General Eric Holder, the secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, and my COUNTERTERRORISM and homeland security adviser, John Brennan. I asked them to keep -- continue monitoring the situation to keep the American people and members of Congress informed. ***** A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of TERRORISM, and we will not rest until we find ALL WHO WERE INVOLVED AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. Now, this was a serious reminder of the dangers that we face and the nature of those who threaten our homeland. Had the suspect succeeded in bringing down that plane, it could have killed nearly 300 passengers and crew, innocent civilians preparing to celebrate the holidays with their families and friends. ***** Second, I've ordered two important reviews, because it's absolutely critical that we learn from this incident and take the necessary measures to prevent future acts of TERRORISM. The first review involves our watch list system, which our government has had in place for many years to identify known and suspected TERRORISTS so that we can prevent their entry into the United States. Apparently the suspect in the Christmas incident was in this system, but not on a watch list, such as the so-called no-fly list. So I have ordered a thorough review, not only of how information related to the subject was handled, but of the overall watch list system and how it can be strengthened. **** Third, I've directed my national security team to keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country. We do not yet have all the answers about this latest attempt, but those who would slaughter innocent men, women and children must know that the United States will more -- do more than simply strengthen our defenses. We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. homeland. Finally, the American people should remain vigilant, but also be confident. Those plotting against us seek not only to undermine our security, but also the open society and the values that we cherish as Americans. This incident, like several that have preceded it, demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist. As a nation, we will do everything in our power to protect our country. As Americans, we will never give in to fear or division. We will be guided by our hopes, our unity, and our deeply held values. That's who we are as Americans; that's what our brave men and women in uniform are standing up for as they spend the holidays in harm's way. And we will continue to do everything that we can to keep America safe in the new year and beyond." (Emphasis added.) It is crystal clear from the foregoing that Obama regarded Abdulmutallab's act as an act of attempted terrorism and did not assume that he was acting alone. Do you really believe that Obama does not regard Al Qaeda and jihadist terrorism as a dire threat?

- dhurtado

January 3, 2010 at 11:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b-- I repeat; in the very remarks in which Obama used the phrase "isolated extremist" he expressed the belief that there were others involved, and made the connection to Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan. So there has not been a change in his views. Napolitano's comment was in fact correct; the RESPONSE to the incident worked smoothly. But it was a stupid non sequitur on her partbecause it elided the issue of how Abdulmutallab got onto the aircraft in the first place.

- dhurtado

January 3, 2010 at 11:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurt, Sorry - I thought your comment was in response to mine. re: "...It is crystal clear from the foregoing that Obama regarded Abdulmutallab's act as an act of attempted terrorism and did not assume that he was acting alone. Do you really believe that Obama does not regard Al Qaeda and jihadist terrorism as a dire threat?" I never said anything about Obama not regarding Al Qaeda and jihadist terrorism as a dire threat. How could I? - Obama mentioned neither "Al Qaeda" nor "jihadist terrorists" in the December 28 speech. I said that Occam's razor suggests to me that he initially was trying to communicate that the series of terrorist acts he was referring to were carried out by "isolated extremist(s).

- malahat

January 3, 2010 at 11:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurt, "...Napolitano's comment was in fact correct; the RESPONSE to the incident worked smoothly. .." Really? I don't think there'd be too many people in the Adminstration these days who would argue that Napolitano's comment was correct. The issue is that, because of a security system failure, there was an attempted terrorist attack (can't bring myself to call it an "incident") to respond to, not whether passengers and air crew responded to a attempted terrorist attack that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

- malahat

January 3, 2010 at 11:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But we know from Obama's very words in the same speech that he doesn't believe that Abdulmutallab was acting alone. So what do you think he meant by "isololated extremist." Peretz apparently thinks that it means that Obama does not believe there is an organized threat. Or that he does not believe Islam is evil. What do you think it means?

- dhurtado

January 3, 2010 at 11:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But that is exactly what Napolitano was saying b. Did you listen to/see her interview with Jake Tapper? She was addressing the RESPONSE to the incident. It was frustrating because she was avoiding the issue of the security system failure. But she at no time said that the security system itself worked. To say that would have been insane.

- dhurtado

January 3, 2010 at 11:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When the Homeland Security Secretary says the "system worked", it's pretty obvious to me that she was referring to the security system. I guess you read it differently. Chacun a son interpretation...

- malahat

January 3, 2010 at 11:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Napolitano was trying to spin the civilian/aircrew response to an incident that shouldn't have happened because of a failure in the security system as part of the security system to deflect criticism over the failure of the security system. I don't think saying that was insane so much as very stupid.

- malahat

January 3, 2010 at 11:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...Peretz apparently thinks that it means that Obama does not believe there is an organized threat. Or that he does not believe Islam is evil. What do you think it means?" I think you might want to rephrase the "...Islam is evil" part of your comment.

- malahat

January 3, 2010 at 11:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b-- Not to beat a dead horse, but I actually watched Tapper's interview with Napolitano live on Sunday morning, December 27th. I was very irritated with Napolitano because she twice stated that the response to the incident went smoothly (which is probably true), while avoiding the issue of how Abdulmutallab got through the security system in the first place. That was a dodge, but she did not say that the security system itself worked. You are buying into the argument of the Republican and media snakepits that tried to put that gloss on her statements.

- dhurtado

January 3, 2010 at 11:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b-- "I think you might want to rephrase the "...Islam is evil" part of your comment." Why? My reading of Peretz over the past months is that he believes there is no distinction between Jihadism and Islam, and that we are at war with Islam, not merely with an extremist, violent offshoot of Islam. I think that is what he is getting at with his recent posts. He cannot reasonably believe that Obama is dismissive of the threat of Jihadism and Al Qaeda. What he wants Obama to wake up to is what Peretz views as a war with Islam. But I ask you again, what do you think Obama meant by "isolated extremist"?

- dhurtado

January 4, 2010 at 12:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think he meant isolated extremist.

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 12:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When John Kerry said a "smarter and more sensitive war" on terrorism, he didn't mean bringing them breakfast in bed; when Napolitano said "the system worked," she didn't mean that it was ok that Abdulmutallab got on the plane; and when Obama said "isolated extremist" he didn't mean that the guy was acting completely on his own but rather that, as a lone terrorist, he was weaker than an "alert and courageous citizenry" (the people on the plane, remember? Some of whom got it together pretty fast to combat the prospective bomber). The immediate context makes the president's meaning perfectly plain.

- ironyroad

January 4, 2010 at 12:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hi irony, It's been my experience that whenever a politician's words in English need to be translated into English, the politician has usually misspoken in English.

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 12:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b-- Surely you don't believe English words are uniformly unambiguous, particularly when extracted from their context. The words "isolated extremist" could mean a person acting without assistance or without co-conspirators, but it also could refer only to a person who was acting alone with regard to the physical attack itself. Given that, about ten seconds before he uttered the words "isolated extremist," Obama expressly acknowledged the possibility of a conspiracy, the application of Occam's razor should lead to the latter interpretation. But even if you insist that, even in context, the words "isolated extremist" mean a person acting completely without assistance or co-conspirators, the question remains whether that is what Obama believes or what he meant to say. Again, given what he previously said during those same remarks, there is no basis for concluding that is what he believes or meant to say. At worst, he misspoke, a possibility you acknowledged in your last post. But none of that addresses the inference that Peretz is trying make, which is that Obama was being dismissive of the potential connection to Jihadist terrorism. That cannot reasonably be inferred from Obama's two speeches.

- dhurtado

January 4, 2010 at 9:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bl462, it's been my experience that whenever someone takes a politician's words in English out of the context in which they were spoken in order to contest their meaning, the person usually knows that he is committing dishonesty. One of the biggest problems with Marty's writing on this incident -- excuse me, this terrorist act, since we're not allowed to assume that anyone is smart enough to remember that something is a terrorist act unless we name it as such every time it's mentioned -- is that he's simply making up false facts to support his position. President Obama talks about "terrorism" and "terrorists," in those words, all the time, and did so regarding this terrorist in the very remarks that Marty claims he did not. Hell, in his Nobel acceptance speech, Obama particularly mentioned the threat posed by "a few small men" engaged in "terrorism" and the need to fight them! What Marty doesn't seem to understand is that the "isolated extremist" -- the one disaffected guy who connects with terrorist masterminds for guidance and tactical support -- is actually a more difficult threat than the fully vested extremist who journeys to Waziristan to join the al-Qaeda bureaucracy. The guys in camps in the desert are a big problem, but none of them will be on your plane or in your shopping mall with a bomb tomorrow. The "isolated extremist" is much harder to identify in advance of an attack, and he could be on your plane or in your shopping mall with a bomb tomorrow. Not every terrorist is KSM. Marty insists that to say so is to minimize the threat, when in fact to say so is to specify the threat.

- rhubarbs

January 4, 2010 at 9:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In my opinion, it does not matter whether he uses the term or not, not as far as the activity is concerned. Whether Obama chooses to define a certain act as terrorism or not cannot change the substance of that act. The more interesting question is why would it be a problem for President Obama to use the term "terrorist"? And why is Marty relieved when he does that? Qui bono from the fact that Obama uses a certain term? If we get an honest answer to this last question then the semantic discussion that seems to take place in this thread would start making a lot more sense.

- noga1

January 4, 2010 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's a good question Noga. No one on this thread has suggested any problem with Obama using the term "terrorist." It is Marty (and certain "conservative" politicians and pundits) who claims (falsely) that Obama has a problem with the term, and who attaches some significance to whether or not he uses it. So you might direct your last question to Marty. I think he at least obliquely answers the question in saying that he thinks Obama's use of the word "terrorism" shows that he finally "gets it" that Jihadist terrorism is a serious international threat. But I agree with you. It would be better for Marty and Obama's Republican opponents to explain what it is that Obama is not DOING that he should do in order to show that he takes the terrorist threat seriously. That would be a much more meaningful discussion.

- dhurtado

January 4, 2010 at 12:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga, You're right that whatever something is labeled doesn't change its objective reality - putting a "horse" sign on a cow doesn't make it a better bet to win a horse race - but it may well reflect the subjective reality of the labeler, or a desire to influence the observer. Or not. For example, I don't have the slightest idea what would be the purpose of Napolitano earlier this year labeling terrorist acts as "man-made disasters" or cui bono from labeling them as such. Maybe Napolitano would be the best person to ask and the only person who could answer.

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Uh, that should have read "last year", not "earlier this year". Welcome to 2010.

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 12:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's my experience, b, that when someone takes a politician's (or anyone's) words out of their immediate context in order to misunderstand them, it's not by accident. Unless you regard it as unacceptable to make a slightly subtle point, then it's obvious that Obama was juxtaposing Abdulmutallab (a lone fanatic in a plane) with the alert response of nearby passengers and cabin crew (a community of people) who saved the day, in order to counteract feelings of panic and pessimism. Again, I'd suggest reading the president's entire sentence (if that's not too much effort) rather than just one phrase.

- ironyroad

January 4, 2010 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony, The horse metaphor was intended more as my 2 cents worth general observation about semantics and metaphysics. As for the "isolated extremist" discussion, I think that's a parrot that's now ceased to be; a flogged, neigh, a flayed horse.

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and, in case I have confused anyone, the comment about "...whenever a politician's words in English need to be translated into English, the politician has usually misspoken in English" was intended to be a general observation as well, i.e, ex post explanations/clarifications/retractions along the lines of "What / meant to say was..." usually is the product of a politician having misspoken in the first place.

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and how did those italics suddenly appear in there? (mea non culpa!)

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah, what happened was I had written "What (the politician)/(I) meant to say was...", but I used caret brackets instead of round ones and it was interpreted as formatting, not text. Mea culpa after all.

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nevertheless, deliberately taking something out of context is not the same as identifying a rhetorical or factual error on the speaker's part.

- ironyroad

January 4, 2010 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony, Agreed.

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

but I don't agree that Abdulmutallab was a "lone fanatic"/"isolated extremist". Neither, apparently does Abdulmutallab. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27terror.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bomber%20charged&st=cse

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...and therefore I don't agree that he should have been initially characterized as such by Obama. But that was then, this is now, and it is now a dead parrot.

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But the point is that, taken in context, Obama did NOT characterize Abdulmutallab "as such," i.e., as one might understand the term in the abstract.

- dhurtado

January 4, 2010 at 2:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurt, I agree that it's inappropriate to take words out of context. Totally. Unequivocally. My point is that, if that's not what he meant to say, he shouldn't have said it, especially because of the context - he's the President, and was speaking after an attempted terrorist attack. Since he's no longer using calling it an incident by an "isolated extermist", I think he might agree that it was an infelicitous choice of words at the time. Beyond that, we're flaying a dead horse.

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... but it may well reflect the subjective reality of the labeler, or a desire to influence the observer. Or not." During the Nuremberg trials, when the Nazi Propaganda Minister Goering was questioned, he managed quite successfully to cast doubts as to the way certain terms, quoted from official Nazi documents, were translated from the German. When the prosecution presented as evidence a short letter from Goering to Heydrich in which "the final solution to the Jewish problem" was the main issue, Goering challenged the translation, claiming that the correct term should have stated "the total solution" to the Jewish problem, and not the "final solution" as it came to be known in contemporary Western media. As you say, there is something iffy about trying to allocate new signifiers to events, acts, or well-established universally understood meanings. I did not get an answer to my question, though: why would it be a problem for President Obama to use the term "terrorist"? In what way does he believe the term "terrorist" to have a different resonance from the term "isolated extremist"? Norm Geras has been keeping tabs on the president's references to 'the struggle formerly known as the War on Terror' : http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/02/fkatwot-index.html And he is not shy in pointing out who is bothered by it.

- noga1

January 4, 2010 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I don't have an answer to your question, but you make an excellent point about Goering at Nuremberg, and thanks for the link. Humpty Dumpty famously opined on semantics in Through the Looking Glass: "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't – till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'" "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all." Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them – particularly verbs, they're the proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs – however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all." Exactly :)

- noga1

January 4, 2010 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Again, even allowing that Obama does use the term less often (which I beg to doubt), there is little evidence a) that the president's less frequent references to "terrorism" or "terrorists" suggest any lack of understanding on his part of the reality of the threat; b) that the frequency of references to terrorism bears any relation whatsoever to the effectiveness of methods deployed to combat same; or c) that the phrase "war on terror" is/was either explanatory, or productive of results.

- ironyroad

January 4, 2010 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The terms "terror" and "terrorist, as well as the phrase "war on......" should be stricken from our vocabulary. These terms and phrases have virtually no descriptive content and are loaded with emotive content. What we are dealing with are criminals and criminal conspiracies, just like the Mafia or the Mexican drug cartels. These are the facts pure and simple; crimes are defined by laws; terrorism exists only in the eyes of the beholder. Now certain criminal acts are no doubt intended to terrify and do sometimes terrify people. But what criminal acts are intended to do and what they have as consequences are not what they are. If someone robs a convenience store, a lot of people might be terrified, but that does not mean that the robbery was "terrorism," which is an almost completely meaningless term. Dealing with criminal conspiracies such as al Qaeda is a policing problem, unless, of course, they engage in military-style action, in which case a military-style response is in order. A military response is not a war, or even part of a war, unless one so defines it. Obama was correct in eliminating, as he has until recently, the terminology of terrorism. But his replacing it with the terminology of Islamic extremism was incorrect. Most Islamic extremists are not criminals. We should ignore the motivation for the crime (whether it be religious, political, etc) and concentrate on the crime, e.g. murder, attempted murder, etc. Furthermore crimes are to be tried in courts, national or international, and that is a fact, not a natter of opinion. One of our biggest mistakes lies in mis-defining the issue. The only issue as a matter of verifiable fact is crime, nothing more. Let's stop chasing the illusion of "terrorism" and get down to the problem of detecting and suppressing crime. In this regard, let's replace the TSA with a proper policing unit. The police do not do anything so stupid as to stop every driver to see whether or not they've been drinking. But examining everyone is the TSA strategy. It makes no sense...except as a political or PR ply.

- gnathan

January 4, 2010 at 4:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, I have no argument with your points a-c. I presume you're responding to MP. Back onto semantics and metaphysics in general, semantics and labels do count, and may have real-world impacts by psychologically disinhibiting the perpetrators and by dehumanizing their victims. For example, the Nazi policy"Final Solution of the Jewish Question" instead of "Murdering all the Jews". "Extermination" is what happens to vermin. Murder can only happen to humans. Latter day examples are "ethnic cleansing" rather than forceable deportation, rape, and mass murder. Semantics and labels feature prominently in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four, where they are used as tools of censorship and mind control.

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's a link to a non-hijacked Wikipedia essay on linguistic relativism that I found interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir%E2%80%93Whorf_hypothesis

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“During the Nuremberg trials, when the Nazi Propaganda Minister Goering was questioned, he managed quite successfully to cast doubts as to the way certain terms, quoted from official Nazi documents, were translated from the German. When the prosecution presented as evidence a short letter from Goering to Heydrich in which "the final solution to the Jewish problem" was the main issue, Goering challenged the translation, claiming that the correct term should have stated "the total solution" to the Jewish problem, and not the "final solution" as it came to be known in contemporary Western media.” What is the word he used in German for "total", Noga? Was it ganz, vollig, or total?

- jacksondyer

January 4, 2010 at 5:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JD. None of the above. The infamous phrase in Heydrich's February 26, 1942 letter was "Endlösung der Judenfrage". http://www.ghwk.de/deut/Dokumente/luther-versand-protokoll-sw.pdf

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But the letter I think Noga is referring to is dated July 31, 1941, from Goering to Heydrich in which Goering directs Heydrich to find a "Gesamtlösung der Judenfrage" (Total Solution to the Jewish Question) http://www.ghwk.de/deut/Dokumente/Goering.pdf

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fwiw irony, I am in complete agreement regarding your points a-c, as b- appears to be. That has been my point on this thread, that one cannot reasonably infer from the totality of Obama's December 28th and January 3rd speeches that he does not understand the nature of the threat.

- dhurtado

January 4, 2010 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Back onto semantics and metaphysics in general, semantics and labels do count, and may have real-world impacts by psychologically disinhibiting the perpetrators and by dehumanizing their victims." I agree, b, but they can also have real-world impacts by elevating their objects beyond what is useful (invoking the sense of a masterful, almost sublime opponent), accidentally fitting an enemy's strategy (they call us terrorists, but what about their Predators killing our people!), and creating a sense of generalized collective accusation where none is meant.

- ironyroad

January 4, 2010 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Two other letters from Heydrich dated January 25, 1942 also use the phrase "Gesamtlösung der Judenfrage" http://www.ghwk.de/deut/heydrich-schmitt.pdf http://www.ghwk.de/deut/Dokumente/heydrich-sd.pdf Heydrich's January 31, 1942 Letter to Eichmann also uses "Endlösung der Judenfrage" http://www.ghwk.de/2006-neu/eichmann-1.pdf, as does the January 20, 1942 "Protokoll der "Wannsee-Konferenz", e.g., http://www.ghwk.de/deut/Besprechung.jpg The site I got these from, the "House of the Wannsee Conference" http://www.ghwk.de/engl/kopfengl.htm is a treasure trove of original documents and some English translations related to the January 20, 1942 Wannsee Conference.

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 6:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Quite true, irony. Propaganda is a tool of war. I think it was Kipling who said that the first victim of war is the truth.

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Gesamtlösung" I think means total solution, or complete solution, a solution that solves "all problems." It can be translated in various ways and I don't what Noga's point was.

- jacksondyer

January 4, 2010 at 9:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also, was Goering “the Nazi Propaganda Minister?"

- jacksondyer

January 4, 2010 at 9:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I believe Joseph Goebbels was the Propaganda Minster. Goering was "Reichsmarshall".

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 9:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hate even typing their names.

- malahat

January 4, 2010 at 9:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes, thanks. "I hate even typing their names." I know what you mean, bl.

- jacksondyer

January 4, 2010 at 11:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close