SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

A Study on the Rhetorical Language Used in Terrorism

TERÖR VE TERÖRİZMDE KULLANILAN RETORİK DİL ÜZERİNE BİR İNCELEME

Yusuf Tan(HAKKARİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6968-9705
Pages
31–53
Publication Date
2026-07-05
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The article concludes with Derrida’s call to distinguish between “comprehending” and “legitimizing,” arguing that categorizing all violent acts under a single label without analytical differentiation constitutes both an epistemic error and strategic risk.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines how the definitional ambiguity of “terror” and “terrorism” concepts creates fertile ground for rhetorical manipulation, approached from philosophical and discourse analysis perspectives.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Drawing on Kuçuradi's observation that “concepts with blurred content can turn into dangerous weapons,” the article analyzes the rhetorical dynamics stemming from terrorism having 109 different definitions and the “freedom fighter vs. terrorist” dichotomy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The article concludes with Derrida’s call to distinguish between “comprehending” and “legitimizing,” arguing that categorizing all violent acts under a single label without analytical differentiation constitutes both an epistemic error and strategic risk.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Mantık · Retorik · Söylem Analizi

Abstract

This study examines how the definitional ambiguity of “terror” and “terrorism” concepts creates fertile ground for rhetorical manipulation, approached from philosophical and discourse analysis perspectives. Drawing on Kuçuradi's observation that “concepts with blurred content can turn into dangerous weapons,” the article analyzes the rhetorical dynamics stemming from terrorism having 109 different definitions and the “freedom fighter vs. terrorist” dichotomy. The paper consists of three main sections. The first section outlines the conceptual framework of terror and terrorism, tracing their evolution from Latin etymology (terrere/terror) through the “Reign of Terror” during the 1789 French Revolution to their modern usage. The second section theorizes rhetoric’s persuasive mechanisms through the Aristotelian triad of ethos-pathos-logos. The third section analyzes how the concept of terror is manipulated by power holders through Coady's quatrain: “Bombing is bad, bombardment is good—the essence of terror depends on who wears the crown of power.” The central thesis argues that terror rhetoric functions to legitimize violence based on “us/them” distinctions. Empirical illustrations include the transformation of Afghan mujahideen from “holy warriors” to “terrorists,” the risk of Al-Qaeda-Shiite-Iran coalitions, and the silencing effect of “war on terror” discourse on critical thinking. The article concludes with Derrida’s call to distinguish between “comprehending” and “legitimizing,” arguing that categorizing all violent acts under a single label without analytical differentiation constitutes both an epistemic error and strategic risk.

Özet

Bu çalışma, “terör” ve “terörizm” kavramlarının tanımsal belirsizliği ile bu belirsizliğin retorik manipülasyona nasıl zemin hazırladığını felsefi ve söylem analizi perspektifinden ele almaktadır. Çalışma, Kuçuradi'nin “içeriği bulanık kavramların tehlikeli silaha dönüşebileceği” tespitinden hareketle, terör kavramının 109 farklı tanıma sahip olmasının ve “özgürlük savaşçısı/terörist” ikileminin retorik kullanım dinamiklerini incelemektedir. Çalışma üç ana bölümden oluşmaktadır. İlk bölümde terör ve terörizmin kavramsal çerçevesi çizilmekte; Latince kökenlerinden (terrere/terror) 1789 Fransız Devrimi'ndeki “terör rejimi” kullanımına, modern anlama evrimi incelenmektedir. İkinci bölümde Aristotelesçi ethos-pathos-logos üçlemesi merkezinde retoriğin ikna mekanizmaları kuramsallaştırılmakta; üçüncü bölümde ise Coady'nin “Bombardıman iyidir/bomba atmak kötüdür” dörtlüğü üzerinden terör kavramının iktidar sahiplerince nasıl manipüle edildiği analiz edilmektedir. Çalışmanın temel tezi, terör retoriğinin “biz/onlar” ayrımına dayalı olarak şiddeti meşrulaştırma işlevi gördüğüdür. Afgan mücahitlerinin “kutsal savaşçı”dan “terörist”e dönüşümü, El-Kaide-Şii-İran koalisyonu riski ve “teröre karşı savaş” söyleminin eleştirel düşünceyi susturucu etkisi örnek olaylarla gösterilmektedir. Çalışma, Derrida’nın “kavrama” ile “meşrulaştırma”yı ayırt etme çağrısıyla sonuçlanmakta; analitik ayrım yapmadan tüm şiddet eylemlerini tek kategoride toplamanın hem epistemik hata hem de stratejik risk olduğu savunulmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tan, Y. (2026). A Study on the Rhetorical Language Used in Terrorism. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 31–53. https://doi.org/10.58201/utsobilder.1943693

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Aly, A., Macdonald, S., Jarvis, L., & Chen, T. M. (2017). Introduction to the special issue: Terrorist online propaganda and radicalization. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 40(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2016.1157603
  2. Arıkboğan, D. Ü. (2003). Tarihin sonundan barışın sonuna. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları Aristoteles. (2014). Retorik (M. H. Doğan, Çev.). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınevi.
  3. Baba, C. (2018). Retoriğin ikna gücü. Ankara: Çizgi Kitabevi.
  4. Barrett, R. (2017). Beyond the caliphate: Foreign fighters and the threat of returnees. New York: The Soufan Center.
  5. BBC News. (2008, May 12). Mandela taken off US terror list. https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7395866.stm
  6. Beaney, M. (2018). Analysis. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition). Stanford University.
  7. Bhushan, V. (1996). International politics. New Delhi: Anmol Publications.
  8. Briggs, R., & Feve, S. (2013). Review of programs to counter narratives of violent extremism. London: Institute for Strategic Dialogue.
  9. Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  10. Cevizci, A. (2005). Paradigma felsefe sözlüğü. İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları.
  11. Chomsky, N. (2003). Hegemony or survival: America’s quest for global dominance. New York: Henry Holt and Company.… (2003). Power and terror: Post-9/11 Talks and Interviews. New York: Seven Stories Press.
  12. Chomsky, N., & Herman, E. S. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
  13. Coady, C. A. J. (1985). The morality of terrorism. Philosophy, 60(231), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100067151
  14. Coll, S. (2004). Ghost wars: The secret history of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden. Penguin Press.
  15. Conway, M. (2017). Determining the role of the internet in violent extremism and terrorism: Six suggestions for progressing research. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 40(1), 77-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2016.1157406
  16. Crenshaw, M. (2000). The psychology of terrorism: An agenda for the 21st century. Political Psychology, 21(2), 405-420. https://doi.org/10.1111/01f62-895X.00195
  17. Crile, G. (2003). Charlie Wilson’s war: The extraordinary story of the largest covert operation in history. Atlantic Monthly Press.
  18. Derrida, J. (2003). Autoimmunity: Real and symbolic suicides- A dialogue with Jacques Derrida. In G. Borradori (Ed.), Philosophy in a time of terror (pp. 85–136). University of Chicago Press. … (2003). Philosophy in a time of terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida (G. Borradori, Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  19. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman. … (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
  20. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. … (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). Pantheon Books.
  21. Gill, A. M., & Whedbee, K. E. (1997). Rhetoric. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (pp. 157-184). London: Sage.
  22. Hoffman, B. (1998). Inside terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.
  23. Holbrook, D. (2022). Social Media and Terrorism, Diego Muro-Tim Wılson (ed.) Contemporary terrorism studies. Oxford: Oxford Universty Press
  24. Jackson, R. (2005). Writing the war on terrorism: Language, politics and counter-terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  25. Kapitan, T. (2004). Terrorism in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In L. Arnulf (Ed.), Terrorism: A philosophical analysis (pp. 23-44). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  26. Katula, R. A. (2003). The origins of rhetoric: Literacy and democracy in ancient Greece. In J. J. Murphy (Ed.), A synoptic history of classical rhetoric (pp. 3–18). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  27. Kennedy, G.A. (1995). A New History of classical rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  28. Koçak, Şeyda (2013) “Aristoteles ve retorik”. http://www.academia.edu/5808466/Aristoteles_ve_Retorik Erişim Tarihi: 01.06.2026.
  29. Kuçuradi, I. (2011). İnsan hakları: kavramları ve sorunları. İstanbul: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu Yayınları.
  30. Laqueur, W. (1977). Terrorism. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
  31. Lilleker, D. G. (2013). Rhetoric. In I. McAllister (Ed.), Political communication (pp. 249-268). London: Sage.
  32. Meyer, M. (2009). Retorik. (İsmail Yergüz, Çev.). Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yayınları. Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (2019). Report of the Fact-Finding Mission regarding incidents in Syria. OPCW.
  33. Özer, A. vd. (2025) Terörizmin el kitabı: kavram, tanım, nedenleri, tarihsel süreci, türleri, mücadele yöntemleri. İskender Karakaya (ed.). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayınlar
  34. Pape, R. A. (2005). Dying to win: The strategic logic of suicide terrorism. New York: Random House. Platon. (2015). Gorgias (C. Yıldırım, Çev.). İstanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. … (2016). Phaidros (C. Yıldırım, Çev.). İstanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. Ross, D. (2017). Aristoteles. (Ahmet Arslan, Çev.). İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınları.
  35. Sageman, M. (2004). Understanding terror networks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Said, E. W. (2001). The essential terrorist. In The end of the peace process: Oslo and after (pp. 171-180). New York: Pantheon Books.
  36. Schmid, A. P. (1984). Political terrorism: A research guide to concepts, theories, data bases and literature. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing. … (2025). Terörizmi tanımlamak. Terörizm ve Radikalleşme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), ss. 16-80
  37. Taslaman, C. (2016). Terör’ün ve cihad’ın retoriği. İstanbul: İstanbul Yayınevi. Tavlas, N. (1995). Terörü tanımlamak. Strateji Dergisi, 95(2), 125-133.
  38. Tilly, C. (2005). Terror as strategy and relational process. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 46(1-2), 11-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715205054469 … (2005). Terror, terrorism, terrorists. Sociological Theory, 22(1), 5–13. United Nations. (2013). Report on the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Ghouta area of Damascus. United Nations.
  39. UNODC. (2018). Defining terrorism. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. van Dijk, Teyn A. (2008). Discuorse and contexs: A sociocognitive approach. New York: Cambrıdge Unıversıty Press
  40. Waldron, J. (2004). Terrorism and the Uses of Terror, The Journal of Ethics, 8(1),ss 5-35.
  41. Weimann, G. (2014). New terrorism and new media. Wilson Center Research Paper. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/new-terrorism-and-new-media
  42. Winter, C. (2015). Documenting the virtual “caliphate”. London: Quilliam Foundation.
  43. Wright, L. (2006). The looming tower: Al-Qaeda and the road to 9/11. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
  44. Yavuz, F. (2023). Terör ve terörizm kavramları üzerine bir değerlendirme. Sosyal Bilimler Gelişim Dergisi, 8(40), 154-162.