Language and terror

Few people can feel anything but shock and anger at the brutal attack on the staff of Charlie Hebdo in Paris last month. Once can understand the reaction that says 'if an evil deed like that can be done in the name of a religion then that religion and its adherents must be evil'.

Which is exactly what the perpetrators hope to achieve. (See Juan Cole's perspective.)

A French guy from Marseilles I met in New Zealand thought that this had failed; that most French people were of the opinion that this outrage was an isolated incident, and that it would not result in more division.

However angry I get, I have to remind myself that, actually, I have far, far more in common with the vast majority of Muslims - in fact more in common with any normal peace-loving person whatever their race, religion or creed - than I have in common with anyone who could behave in such a savagely violent way towards his/her fellow humans. Or with anyone who has the sheer arrogance to believe that these actions are justified and, anyway, that they have the right to impose their beliefs on others.

I do object to the media assigning motive/rationale to the terrorists. In my mind calling them 'jihadists' almost implies compliance - not with their actions of course - but with the validity of their motives. Or at least it implies that jihad is a viable motive based on some belief system. To disaffected, unfulfilled, or ill people there could be a hint of purpose, glamour even, in such a cause.

Those who murder -with guns, with IEDs, with swords, with children induced to wear bomb jackets, or whatever - for claimed political or religious reasons - are simply callous murderers. They should be described as such and not given the dignity of any other description.