Don't judge somebody by the (terror) label

[atommom]

The use of the terror label to delegitimize one or several parties to a conflict is not new, nor is it uncommon. The practice can be observed in conflicts worldwide, such as in Russian attitudes toward armed groups in Chechnya and China's relation to Uighur organizations in Xinjiang. Also, the terrorism label is applied to the other party by both sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

As such, the overuse of this term to gain the moral high ground in a dispute contributes to the confusion and disagreement over what is understood as terrorism. This confusion is due the selective and highly normative use of the terrorism label that undermines attempts at distinctions and nuances in defining the threat, incorporating a wide variety of actors, aims, and methods, and directly diminishes the possibility for non-violent conflict resolution.

The political use of the terrorist label is nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in the "war on terror". Many of the organizations and states that have been accused or labeled as terrorist have without doubt committed acts that correspond to existing definitions of terrorism. Yet the consequence of a politically governed use of the label of terrorism is that the focus is placed on the application of the label rather than its definition.

The fact that the application of the term matters more than the meaning of the term and that this application is politically governed has a direct impact on conflict resolution. As pointed out by Mark Perry and Alastair Crooke in their two-piece article in Asia Times Online, How to lose the 'war on terror', application of the terrorist label precludes any form of negotiation or dialogue.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HE20Df01.html