How September 11, 2001 changed the language of conflict
An Al Jazeera analysis argues that the events of 9/11 gave rise to new terminology that helped make the erosion of human rights more palatable. The piece was published as the anniversary of the attacks approaches.
As the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks approaches, Al Jazeera has published an analytical article titled "'War on terror': How 9/11 changed the language of conflict." The piece examines how the events of that day gave rise to a new set of terms and expressions that remain in use today.
According to the article, this new lexicon has served as a means of making the erosion of human rights more acceptable, or less noticeable, within the context of security and counterterrorism measures introduced afterward. In other words, the language developed to describe a new kind of conflict has simultaneously softened or justified actions that might otherwise be regarded as violations of rights.
The role of language in shaping perception
The Al Jazeera piece emphasizes that the terminology in question is not a neutral description but an active factor shaping how societies and decision-makers perceive certain actions. How conflicts, adversaries and countermeasures are named can determine whether specific actions are seen as legitimate or as open to challenge.
The article fits into a broader discussion of how language influences policy and public attitudes toward the security measures introduced since 2001. Its publication, timed to the approaching anniversary of the attacks, invites renewed reflection on how terminology developed over the past two decades has shaped public and political discourse around conflict and security.
