Laxity in describing the crime weakens the clarity of the stance against it, and language that avoids calling terrorism by its name opens, intentionally or unintentionally, a space for moral ambiguity. When a crime is this clear, ambiguity in condemning it becomes a position in itself.
A sound moral compass does not lose its direction in the face of terrorism, nor does it change its orientation based on the identity of the victim or the perpetrator. A moral standard that condemns a crime here but hesitates to condemn it there is not a moral standard, but rather selectivity that weakens the values we claim to defend. It is not right to reject terrorism in its results, then appease its intellectual roots, tolerate discourse that justifies it, or allow the normalization of its vocabulary in our national space.
Confronting terrorism is not limited to pursuing its perpetrators, but also begins with dismantling the intellectual system that gives it pretexts for existence, and confronting the appeasing discourse that downplays its hideousness, seeks excuses for it, or sows doubt about the entitlement of its victims to solidarity and condemnation. Extremism begins as an idea, turns into discourse, and may end as a crime when it finds those who justify it or overlook it.
Condemning terrorism is not a matter of choosing words, but a declaration of an unequivocal bias toward the sanctity of human life, the holiness of places of worship, the rule of law, and the unity of Jordanian society.
Let us be clear in our words as we are steadfast in our values: terrorism is terrorism, crime is crime, there is no neutrality between those who target the nation's security and those who protect it, and there is no compromise on the coexistence that Jordanians have preserved throughout the centuries.
