# Banal Terrorism - Proposition By:: [[Ross Jackson]] 2025-12-15 Language is consequential. Its consequences are currently on full display as substituting “narco-terrorists” for “drug traffickers” has facilitated blowing up civilian boats and then strafing survivors with our military and stealing foreign property and assets. Make no mistake, there are negative, social, and individual consequences that result from illegal drugs. It is a social ill. It should be addressed. It likely should be addressed from a variety of perspectives and as holistically as possible. The issue isn’t that there are negative consequences associated with illegal drugs and the consumption thereof; this understanding has been understood for at least two hundred years. The issue is with labeling the situation as narco-terrorism and using the military in response. How can society be terrorized by something it tries desperately to ignore? Drug trafficking is too banal to be considered a terror. Two aspects should be explored in a situation such as this. First, what does the rhetoric enable? As indicated, through the linguistic transformation of drug trafficking into narco-terrorism, those in power are now able to use military force. What was once unthinkable is now seemingly legitimate. Second, what does the rhetoric obfuscate? A “war” can distract from a host of economic and political failures. Again, it should be stressed that drug abuse is a problem. It requires a host of responses. Unilateral military force isn’t one of them. If military force can be employed by simply affixing the label “terrorist” to the end of something considered undesirable, there is no limit. People are being “terrorized” by isolation, predatory lending, consumerism, prescription drugs, dysfunctional and nonrepresentative government, and a biased legal system. The list could go on. If one decides to label these as forms of terrorism, should the use of military force against the threat be considered legitimate? No. It wouldn’t be in these cases. It isn’t against the rhetorical construction of narco-terrorism either. The ancients studied rhetoric because they understood its power. Rhetoric can justify the unjust. Critical thinking is required to assess the degree to which a rhetorical argument has merit. We live in a society ill-equipped to do this. We can determine if a position is consistent with what we already believe, or if we like the position, but not much else. Those equipped to think should be on guard against the banalization of terrorism.     #### Related Items [[Language]] [[Rhetoric]] [[Military]] [[Government]] [[Society]] [[Thinking]]