my criticism of "antiterrorism" as an ideology is not that the proponents of this concept believe they fight terror with terror. to the contrary, they believe they are, to use your phrase. "righteous" and are opposing the wicked. my point is that the very concept or term "antiterrorism" is an ideological propaganda tool. it should always be regarded suspicously, for the simple reason that terrorists always claim to fighting to bring justice or peace against those who are threatening or terrorising them. my propsal is to just drop the word "antiterrorism" not to change to whom it is applied. it is unnecessary since we can, if we want, describe the actions to prevent a a highjacking, say, as a police action, or describe a just war as a just war: there's no need to bring in the silly pseudo-word "anti-terrorist."
Trevor, your remarks say that the U.S. committed a grave act of terror in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but that the ascription to the U.S. of the label terrorist is somehow isolated to that narrowly defined event. apparently, five minutes before the bomb dropped, or before the order was given, or something, the U.S. was not a terrorist and that it became so then. an alternative view is that there was a terroristic core to the system of militarism and government that led to such an event that makes it terrorist well in advance. that is, the very fact that such a project could develop reveals the latent terror at the heart of the ostensibly democratic and liberal social order.
what you are calling the "intital labeling" is not historically accurate. it follows, rather, the statist propaganda machine according to which terror is exclusively the province of dangerous radicals and revolutionaries. however, terror applies first of all to reigns of terror in which a group already in power tries to subdue or purge its enemies or perceived threats to its power.The intitial labelling of "terrorists" was to describe a group of people who caused terror in society by targeting weak points, ie..civillian population, non military targets, etc. to instill a sense of terror within the general population thereby causing subsequent turmoil in government through the discontentment of the society in hopes of achieving their goal...which is to sieze power.
again, what is the relevance of this topic to the question of art and morality. well, it connects via the question of ideology. can and does certain forms of art create or reinforce political ideologies in the minds of its readers, viewers? in the case of abstract art, the answer seems to be clearly, no. it is only art that has a human content, some relation to history or myth and social meaning, that can function as such an ideology or influence to action.