"It would be easy to define terrorism as attacks against human rights and international humanitarian law forbids attacks against innocent non-combatants which is often the definition used for terrorism"
About this Quote
Ito’s line reads like a calm invitation to consensus, but it’s really a warning about how slippery “terrorism” becomes the moment you treat it as a legal synonym for “evil violence.” The opening move - “It would be easy” - is doing quiet work: he’s signaling that the obvious definition is also the tempting one, the kind that flatters our moral instincts while dodging the hardest part of the debate (who gets to apply the label, and to whom).
By anchoring terrorism to “human rights” and “international humanitarian law,” Ito borrows the legitimacy of rules that sound neutral and universal. That’s the intent: shift the argument from vibes and vengeance to frameworks that carry institutional weight. But the subtext is more complicated. International humanitarian law is designed to regulate war, not settle political branding disputes; it prohibits attacks on civilians, yes, but it also distinguishes combatants, proportionality, state responsibility - categories that often disappear in public rhetoric. Calling this “often the definition used for terrorism” hints at a rhetorical shortcut: we reach for the civilian/non-combatant distinction because it’s emotionally legible, even when the legal and political realities are messier.
Context matters here because Ito is a businessman and networked-world figure, not a prosecutor or a general. He’s speaking from the domain where language shapes policy, platform governance, and public legitimacy. The quote’s careful, almost bureaucratic cadence suggests a desire to de-escalate semantic warfare: if you can’t agree on motives, at least agree that targeting innocents violates baseline norms. The irony is that “easy” definitions rarely survive contact with power, especially when states and movements fight over who counts as innocent.
By anchoring terrorism to “human rights” and “international humanitarian law,” Ito borrows the legitimacy of rules that sound neutral and universal. That’s the intent: shift the argument from vibes and vengeance to frameworks that carry institutional weight. But the subtext is more complicated. International humanitarian law is designed to regulate war, not settle political branding disputes; it prohibits attacks on civilians, yes, but it also distinguishes combatants, proportionality, state responsibility - categories that often disappear in public rhetoric. Calling this “often the definition used for terrorism” hints at a rhetorical shortcut: we reach for the civilian/non-combatant distinction because it’s emotionally legible, even when the legal and political realities are messier.
Context matters here because Ito is a businessman and networked-world figure, not a prosecutor or a general. He’s speaking from the domain where language shapes policy, platform governance, and public legitimacy. The quote’s careful, almost bureaucratic cadence suggests a desire to de-escalate semantic warfare: if you can’t agree on motives, at least agree that targeting innocents violates baseline norms. The irony is that “easy” definitions rarely survive contact with power, especially when states and movements fight over who counts as innocent.
Quote Details
| Topic | Human Rights |
|---|
More Quotes by Joichi
Add to List
