The fog of terrorism : a philosophical analysis into the veracity of the terrorism lexicon

The word 'terrorism' describes a lexicon but has little utility as a politically relevant and beneficial concept. The implacable nature of the terrorism lexicon is such that our current usages lack significant veracity and hence, utility. The word 'terrorism' is an extremely contested word for which there is no ideological consensus. Unfortunately the American government's conception and characterisation of 'terrorism' and 'terrorists' is dangerous, hypocritical, and violent and leaves no possibility of finding a lasting resolution to the problem of "terrorism". Also, if 'terrorism' does not conform to fact it is not accurate and thus misleading so it cannot be useful in our political and media discourses especially when its usage has very dangerous consequences. The word 'terrorism' is used to instil fear, dehumanize, to remove civil liberties and freedoms and is used to justify a new, violent international norm. Moreover, because our current usage is defective and equivocal it can actually further the "terrorist" cause. The American government has helped create our befuddled understanding of the word and created a climate of fear and divisiveness through their calculated employment of persuasive definitions of 'terrorism' and in their greater and enduring use of 'the war on terror'. In light of the principle of universality and the historical record, American state violence makes them the largest global terrorist. Thus, 'terrorism' has lost all its veracity and utility and its usages are dangerously evolving and mutating to justify the otherwise unjustifiable. It is with haste that we should abandon the word altogether