Re: Islamist, Jihadist, Extremist etc.
And intentional no doubt. Special interests are served in defining the War On Terror broadly enough to wage as needed. Whether that’s clauses in the Patriot Act, the definition of a terrorist outfit, or the recently updated AUMF (Authorization for use of Military Force against Terrorists). Keeping the ‘enemy’ vague and broadly defined affords more legal loopholes and allows you to target virtually anyone. Language is tied to power and politics; the way we argue and frame an argument determines the outcome. It’s no wonder then that this is a War of Language before anything else.