In plain English, what’s the difference between a militant and a terrorist?

Viewers of the Fox News Channel will be familiar with their use of the term "suicide-murderer". Surely the accepted term "suicide bomber" conveys the intended meaning. We know the intent of the terrorists. Altering the language to add a layer of condemnation brings us no closer to understanding the problem.

Those using the euphemism "militant" instead of "terrorist" are doing the reverse, seeking to avoid the moral condemnation associated with the word terrorism. But this example simply shows the futility of a bias-free approach. Terrorism has a simple meaning, which should be applied to those who practice it. There is a good reason why the word carries a pejorative bias.

What is it about world politics that prevents clear thinking? We have seen for the past year a tendency to wilfully confuse the war on terrorism, with the war in Iraq. The people of Spain voted out a government that supported a war they didn’t want. For their trouble, supporters of the war have labelled them appeasers. The fact the Spanish people changed their government after being targeted by al-Qa’ida, is no more appeasement of terrorism, than the American decision to withdraw its forces from Saudi Arabia.

There was all sorts of yelping from right-wingers when John Pilger recently told the ABC that Australian soldiers were legitimate targets for the Iraqi resistance. But Pilger, wrong about most things, is correct on this occasion. It is an obvious consequence of waging war that our soldiers become targets for the enemy.

Any numbers of high-profile leaders are convinced that terrorism is caused by poverty. Archbishop Desmond Tutu spoke recently of the “conditions of poverty, of disease, of ignorance” that breed terrorism. However commendable it would be to reduce global poverty, it has very little to do with terrorism.

All the S11 bombers were educated members of the Arab middle class. Al-Qa’ida’s recruits are driven by perceived injustice, not poverty. Indeed, education is an essential part of the development of zealotry of all kinds. That, quite simply, is why Hamas operates schools.

An even-handed approach to the world’s trouble spots need not be a value-free approach. It is difficult enough trying to sort out solutions to the world’s many problems without crossing the line between impartiality and vacuousness in our discourse. Let’s start by calling a terrorist a terrorist.