<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Dialogue Venture &#187; Hasan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dialogueventure.com/tag/hasan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dialogueventure.com</link>
	<description>with John Backman</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:51:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>What Is a Terrorist? And Why Bother Asking?</title>
		<link>http://www.dialogueventure.com/2009/12/03/what-is-a-terrorist-and-why-bother-asking/</link>
		<comments>http://www.dialogueventure.com/2009/12/03/what-is-a-terrorist-and-why-bother-asking/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:46:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Dialogue and Current Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practical Steps Toward Dialogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dialogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fort Hood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hasan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homeland security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dialogueventure.com/?p=205</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[About 10 days ago, I was preparing to take part in a discussion on All the Way IN Radio. (Check the News &#38; Views section of the homepage for directions to the broadcast.) The topic, which concerned zeal vs. terrorism, was set in the context of the Fort Hood shooting. My research raised more questions [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>About 10 days ago, I was preparing to take part in a discussion on All the Way IN Radio. (Check the News &amp; Views section of the <a href="http://www.dialogueventure.com/" target="_self">homepage</a> for directions to the broadcast.) The topic, which concerned zeal vs. terrorism, was set in the context of the Fort Hood shooting. My research raised more questions than answers, but one thing became clear: the need for precise language in dialogue on sensitive topics. </p>
<p>Take <em>terrorism. </em>According to the <em><a title="Monitor article on Senate Ft. Hood testimony" href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1120/p02s10-usmi.html" target="_blank">Christian Science Monitor</a>, </em>retired Army general John Keane offered his thoughts on the definition during testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee. To quote the article, “Hasan shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ before firing on a crowd…. That’s enough evidence for General Keane to label the shooting an act of terrorism.” What does this mean? That the addition of a religious utterance automatically turns an act of violence into terrorism? If, then, a platoon of soldiers publicly dedicates their efforts in battle to Jesus Christ, is that terrorism?</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror" target="_blank">definition of <em>terror</em></a><em> </em>in the <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/" target="_blank">Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary</a> comes closer: “violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.” Yet if we accept this definition—with the word <em>group</em>—we rule out the Fort Hood shooting as an act of terrorism, because Major Hasan allegedly acted alone. Is that reasonable?</p>
<p>Based on the terrorist atrocities of the past several decades, I think we can<em> </em>make certain assertions about the concept of terrorism with some confidence. It involves physical violence. It’s designed for media coverage. The goal is to intimidate and/or call attention to a cause.</p>
<p>Note what’s missing here: any mention of religion or spirituality. Clearly, religion <em>does </em>motivate some to commit acts of terror. But religion is not a <em>necessary </em>condition. Right?</p>
<p>Or wrong?</p>
<p>This is tough stuff, and granted, it can<em> </em>devolve into pointless hair splitting. But there’s a reason for getting it right. As my sister-in-law says, “Words mean things.” They also carry emotional weight—especially the buzzwords at the center of our most divisive issues. Use them at all and you get an instant reaction. Toss them around carelessly and the emotional reaction multiplies. People get angry, put up their defenses, and stop talking. Nothing gets solved.</p>
<p>Throughout a dialogue, then, it’s useful to keep a small part of our brains finely tuned to the words we use. If we can use them precisely—and civilly—we have a better chance of communicating our meaning, being heard, and making progress with our adversaries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dialogueventure.com/2009/12/03/what-is-a-terrorist-and-why-bother-asking/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

