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

[Lalit Ambardar]

Although there is always a sinister  attempt to call  pan Islamism inspired Kashmiri terrorists as militants ( euphamism in the valley by their over ground patrons is 'the boys') but Khalistanis were always denounced as 'Sikh terrorists'.So, no confusion on that account.
It won't be amusing if tomorrow ,the 'vested interests' decide to compare at par the, discredited Satyam boss with say Osama bin Laden.
Regards
LA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:12:35 +0000> From: 2tahamehmood at googlemail.com> To: yasir.media at gmail.com> CC: reader-list at sarai.net> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Is the singular Rhetoric of Terror flawed?> > 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.> _________________________________________> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.> Critiques & Collaborations> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
_________________________________________________________________
What can you do with the new Windows Live? Find out
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx