The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) & Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary jointly announced today that the word 'terrorist' and its
derivative 'terrorism' would be redefined to make it more narrower in
its scope in view of general public sentiments. Michael
Palin, publisher of Oxford English Dictionary said that in the next edition of Oxford Dictionary the word
'terrorist' would be defined as 'a Muslim who uses violence and
intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary would also modify its current definition of terrorism and change it as
'systematic use of terror by Muslims as a means of coercion'.
Presently, the word 'terrorist' is defined by OED as 'a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims'. while Webster defines the word 'terrorism' as 'the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion'
This change has been prompted by general wide-spread belief all
over the world that only Muslims can be terrorists, despite countless
evidence to the contrary. John Morse, President and Publisher of
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary said that the decision to redefine the
word was taken after the company's working committee on redefinition
learned about the unwillingness of Indians, mostly Hindus, to accept
that Hindus can also be capable of terrorism.
Yesterday, Times of India, India's leading newspaper published a
report on the support that Sadhvi Pragya SIngh Thakur, a women
belonging to a right-wing group and accused of terrorism, has been
receiving from thousands of her online well-wishers. According to this
report, she has thousands of fans on social networking sites who
consider her an "idol" Indian women and justify her acts in no uncertain terms.
"This is the last straw! If Indians who have been the biggest
victims of terrorism in the last hundred years are unable to recognize
terrorism originating from non-Muslims, then there must be certainly
something wrong with our definition of terrorism!" exclaimed Morse.
Morse explained further the reasons for changing the definition of
the controversial word "Since the start of World War II, we have
identified thousands of
acts of terror using our old definition - 'violence and intimidation in
the pursuit of political aims' which have resulted in the death of
millions of people worldwide. There have been several genocides by
political leaders, communal rioting, illegal wars in pursuit of
political aims, use of nuclear weapons, all of which have caused
widespread terror and resulted in death of countless millions. But in
none of these cases, the perpetuaters of the
acts have been identified as terrorists either by people or by media."
said John Morse
"Lets face it! Last century was a pretty bloody century, the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. Nearly 185 million people died of acts that according to our previous definition
constituted terrorism. Commies butchered 85-100 million, 130-140
million died from wars and conflicts. Tyrannical dictators killed 44
millions through state-sponsored genocide while over 15 million were
killed due to US foreign policy. But does the world recognize
communists, war-mongers/profiteers, tyrannical dictators or American
presidents as terrorists?
"The outgoing US president George W Bush had reportedly said that Jesus instructed him to invade Iraq & Afghanistan.
That should have qualified him as a Christian terrorist! But was he ever identified as a Christian terrorist by Christians? Nope.
Israeli armed forces have shelled Palestinian villages and
indiscriminately killed and maimed thousands of Palestinians. Yet, Israeli politicians who have ordered terror attacks on
Palestinians and military men who have carried out the terror attacks
have never been called Jew terrorists by Jews. And now even Hindus have
refused to recognize those accused of plotting and planning Malegaon blasts as
Hindu terrorists."
"Except for Muslims, no other religious group has acknowledged the
presence of terrorism within its own ranks or spoken out against terrorism
perpetuated by members of their own group. Rightly or wrongly, the general population too believes that while 'not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are muslims'."
"It is very obvious to us that our older definition of terrorism which
includes all forms of violence and intimidation for political aims as
terrorism is not accepted by the majority of the population." added
John Morse.
Carol Wilensky
said:
 |
Was there no comment because of fear of terrorist. This is one of the best examples of a clear and sane use of freedom of speech. Funny, horrifying and telling us of our insanity, and I include the word as most likely by now we are all implicated in how the word is used....I love Michael Palin, now only more..  |
