'The nightmare scenario is that biological weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists',
White House press secretary.
[Comment in relation to Syrian government announcement that they have biological weapons: my paraphrase]
It would seem to me that we have come to define a terrorist as any one that uses methods that invoke terror to enforce an agenda that does not agree with mine.
Any group that disagrees with the USA, and uses techniques of terror, is labeled a terrorist and perhaps a member of the axis of evil. Any person that articulates a position different to a Western 'elected power broker' and uses force to protect themselves, or their own, is a terrorist!
(I do not support techniques of terror), but it would seem to me that we have come too easily to accept that the 'use of fear to intimidate people', (the definition of terror) is a technique only used by 'others'. Surely the Australian, USA, British (etc) government would never use 'fear' to control people!
After all that has occured in Syria, isn't it a bit rich to be concerned that the weapons might fall into hands of terrorists. I suggest that, given that they are already in the hands of a government that has proved its willingness to use acts of fear to intimidate, that the weapons are already in the hands of terrorists.
Please, let's not pretend that this theory applies only to Middle eastern (Islamic) governments. Haven't we all seen evidence of 'western governments' using words and threats to frighten their own people. Not all terrorism is overtly military action, some people and governments are very good at invoking fear and terror through scenario painting.
Terrorism has become a very one sided description of what our enemies do. But let's not be naive in believing that governments do not engage in acts of terror against their own citizens, let alone against other nations. Even the most 'altruistic' military/police support efforts could, by definition, be called terror actions. (Could 'peace keeping' - well meaning heavily armed militia patrolling streets - actually be an act of terror?)
It seems to me that either we need to be more even handed with the word and label all acts that invoke fear, including those by governments, as terrorism, or we need to drop it. But the word terrorist has taken on a 'convenient' emotive connotation that words such as insurgent, guerrilla or militant have not. The word terrorist has been hijacked by governments to scapegoat those who challenge their legitimacy.
