[Reader-list] Is the singular Rhetoric of Terror flawed?

[Taha Mehmood]

Dear all,

While mailing this post I wanted to share with you my confusions regarding
the interpretation of the word terror/terrorist/terrible.

For many years now we are being consciously made to believe that -terrorist-
means a certain thing. So much so that if we look at the history of the word
-Terrorist- there seems to be complete -U- turn.

 In 1947 when the word was first coined a Terrorist referred to 'the Jewish
tactics against the British in Palestine'
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=terror&searchmode=none.

Now we are asked to believe that it is something else. By something else I
mean that the word terrorist have come to signify all Muslims who are
engaged in acts of violence that results in the loss of life, property or
livelihood of other people.

These words- Terror, terrorist, terrible, contain a common interpretation
that it has got to do something with the idea of fear.

It was in this regard that I wanted to ask as to why were we made to believe
that those who used fear as a strategy that had resulted in the loss of
life, property or livelihood of other people  in Punjab were read as
militants, those who had occasionally used fear as a strategy that had
resulted in the loss of life, property or livelihood of other people in
Maharashtra, Orrisa are framed as activists and likewise actions of those
which resulted in the loss of life, property or livelihood of other people
in Bihar were read as -floods-.

Regarding Bihar -floods-.

I do not know whether there exists sufficient evidence in the public domain
with necessary arguments and empirical data to conclude that Floods in Bihar
were entirely natural .

There are colluding interpretations of the Bihar Floods story. If the
arguments in the bbc and the time story pasted below are valid, then we may
conclude that floods were to a certain extent not entirely natural.. If the
floods were  to a degree man-made then,

 why are these floods argued about in the language of a -natural disaster-
or a man made disaster only Why are we not asked to thing that all those
persons whose deliberate nigligence resulted in the loss of life and
property of other people were terrorists?

or Why is it that we are not asked think that a Malegaon blast or a 9/11 or
26/11was a man made disaster too?

When these floods were caused by people who had perhaps acted with
deliberate negligence and those actions resulted in the loss of in the loss
of life, property or livelihood of other people who were clearly afraid, why
is not framed in the language of terror.

There seems to be a very clear understanding in the popular media about how
one event should be constructed and framed and I am not able to coherently
map this understanding.

Regards

Taha

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1837449,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics
India's Floods: a Manmade Disaster?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7593497.stm

*Man made disaster?*

Arguments have developed over whether the Bihar flooding could have been
prevented.

The disaster began on 18 August when the Kosi broke its eastern bank further
north in Nepal, where the river is often called the Saptakoshi.

The river's flow is regulated by a barrage - on the Nepalese side of the
border - which was built in the late 1950s.

Under a joint agreement India agreed to pay for the work and be responsible
for its maintenance.

Some analysts point out that the structure was built only as a short-term
solution, meant to last 20 or 30 years.

Others accuse the Indian government of having failed in its duty to maintain
and repair the defences. If they had, they argue, the river could have been
kept on course.

Indian engineers say the Nepalese authorities did not give them the safe
access they needed to carry out the work and that there were labour
problems.

Massive natural silting is also a major problem. Critics say joint efforts
to control that silting were also inadequate this year.

In Nepal itself, officials say hundreds of people have been hit by illnesses
such as diarrhoea and pneumonia, and an estimated 50,000 are homeless.

They say nearly 1,000 houses have been completely destroyed, and that power
supplies and transport have been severely affected.

The costs to the economy are now estimated at one billion Nepalese rupees
($14.25m).

In Bangladesh, tens of thousands of villagers are reported to be cut off and
there are fears that conditions will get worse.