Thursday, June 01, 2006

TER’- ROR- IST

WE’VE BEEN HEARING AND USING THE WORD REPEATEDLY IN RECENT YEARS.
SHOULDN’T WE HAVE A STANDARD DEFINITION OF THE WORD, RATHER THAN ADJUSTING THE MEANING AS IT SUITS ONE'S INTERESTS.

AN ANTI-SMUT CRUSADER ONCE RESPONDED TO THE QUESTION, ‘WHAT IS PORNOGRAPHY?’
BY SAYING,
“I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT!”

CAN WE ALL APPLY THE WORD ‘TERRORIST’ ONLY WHEN IT SATISFIES OUR OWN LIQUID, UNDEFINED DEFINITION?
CAN OTHERS USE THEIR OWN SLIDE RULE AND SAY, "I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT?"

IS TERRORISM THE DELIBERATE KILLING OF AN INNOCENT LIFE? ALWAYS?
ANYWHERE?


ARE WE AFRAID TO DEFINE THE WORD BECAUSE IT MIGHT APPLY IN CASES WHERE WE’RE MORE COMFORTABLE USING EUPHEMISMS?

PLESE...EDUCATE ME HERE.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is a terrorist one who uses violence to overthrow an existing government? Then our valiant freedom fighters of the Revolutionary War would be cowardly terrorists rather than patriots.

Is a terrorist one who kills civilians? Then all combatants in any war would be terrorists due to collateral damage.

Is a terrorist one who purposely targets civilians? Then our country is a terrorist government by virtue of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Perhaps a terrorist is simply whoever we are fighting at a given moment and need to demonize.

Anonymous said...

A terrorist is someone who uses or threats to use force or violence against people or property
with the intention of instilling fear and terror for any reason. I don’t think any one has to be
killed or injured or any property destroyed to call it terrorism, just the threat is enough. I don’t
think the threats apply to soldiers, only civilians. I also don’t think it has to be an organized
group or a religious or political reason to cause terror, you and I could be terrorists. Abusive
spouses terrorize their mates every day. Bullies terrorize the weak.Etc.,Etc.

Anonymous said...

What is the reason for having to label and categorize everything. Does it help put things in some type of perspective that makes it easier to deal with. If you think going into a Pizza joint and blowing up men, women and children is okay because you don't like something about them or what they stand for, then fine, call it what you want. For God's sake, consider the act, not the nomenclature.

quicksand said...

DEAR TIME WELL WASTED,

I SUGGEST YOU REREAD MY QUESTION.
NOWHERE DOES IT SUGGEST THAT IT'S OK TO BLOW UP PEOPLE IN A PIZZA SHOP.
AS TO LABELING AND CATEGORIZING EVERYTHING...ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT MANY ARE DOING, FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ON DOWN. OUR PRESIDENT USES THE WORD ON A DAILY BASIS.

YOU SUGGEST I CONSIDER 'THE ACT'.
THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT. DEFINE A TERRORIST ACT IN A WAY THAT APPLIES TO ANYONE COMMITTING IT.

Anonymous said...

Dearest Quicksand-
I never alluded to you saying that it was okay to blowup anything. I was just commenting on what you wrote which appeared, to me, to be a need to correctly categorize people or events. This is extremely hard to do. Call it what you like. From my point of view certain acts are heinous. For others it may not be. Label it what you want, it is what it is.

quicksand said...

THE FOLLOWING COMMENT WAS SENT TO ME FROM BUDDINGTON IN ENGLAND.

This morning I listened to some bitch from the American government saying something like 'Iraq is the front line in the Western War on terrorism' and I had the same thoughts you did. Put Vietnam where Iraq is in that sentence and 'communism' where 'terrorism' is and you have a very sad tale. There is a hubris somewhere in the American psyche that says we are better than others and that our cause is more justified than anyone else's. Then when things go pear shaped as they do, it is the fault of politicians because they tied the hands of the military and wouldn't let them get on with the job. It is never the idea that is wrong, simply the execution of it. So all the arm chair Nazis who want to jack-boot it around the world don't have to examine themselves, all they need do is turn their venom towards a politician now and then as they tool around fuming behind the wheel of their gas guzzling SUVs.

Listened to Crosby, Stills etc singing about Chicago in 1968:

We can change the world,
Rearrange the world (well you need to rhyme the word 'change' don't you?)

Remember those days? I don't know many people who think like that anymore, do you?

quicksand said...

BEN HAS SMART FRIENDS.

quicksand said...

SWEET VIOLET,
YOU MAKE THE POINT SO WELL. ARE WE USING A VOCABULARY WHICH APPLIES ONLY WHEN IT SUITS OUR PURPOSES, OR, DO WE TRULY THINK CERTAIN ACTS ARE WICKED?

THE BUSH TRANSCRIPT IS STUNNING. YOU COULD BE ACCUSED OF RIDICULING HIM, MERELY BY USING HIS VERY OWN WORDS.

quicksand said...

DEAR 'TIME WELL SPENT'
YOU SAY,

From my point of view certain acts are heinous. For others it may not be. Label it what you want, it is what it is.

I KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T SPEAK FOR OTHERS.........WHICH IS THE PROBLEM ACTUALLY. WE DON'T HAVE AN ARTICULATED DEFINITION OF TERRORISM. WE CLAIM TO BE AGAINST 'TERRORISM' WITHOUT EVER COMING TO REASONED TERMS ON WHAT IT IS AND ISN'T.
YOU SAY LABEL IT WHAT YOU WANT. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING. RATHER CONVENIENTLY.

quicksand said...

SNEEDY SENT THE FOLLOWING TO ME:


Yo! (Au courant-ly speaking)

Re: a def. of terrorism. Many long years ago, over the course of lotsa months, a v.g. shrink cautioned me: “Sneedy, she said, you are looking for rational explanations to irrational acts.” It took me lotsa months to grasp the futility of my quest…an acceptance that’s made survival a bit easier ever since. For instance, I no longer search for the Holy Grail or the yeti.

Anonymous said...

Dearest Quicksand,
I can help you through this dilemma. Your POV (point of view) defines the definition of anything. You may not be able to define terrorism. If you are a proponent of the Bush Regime then you believe in Red Terrorism. If you are against the current policy then you believe in Blue Terrorism. If you were in favor of the Crusades then you believe in Holy Terrorism. Or is it Holy Crusade?. If you believe that dropping the atom bomb was justified then you are a believer in Nuclear Terrorism. It is the nature of the species to justify most actions with a healthy label and to label distasteful actions of others with a negative connotation. It is all how you perceive it. It is the nature of the beast. Good Luck with a universal definition. Perhaps the nature of the question is more political then literal.

quicksand said...

DEAR WASTED TIME,
SO TERRORISM IS IN THE POLITICS OF THE BEHOLDER?

quicksand said...

THE FOLLOWING CAME IN FROM
LONE-STAR NORMA:

I don't worry about terroists getting me. I'm not afraid of getting hurt or
blown up. My concern is the way the Bush Gang terrorizes us. Their fear
tactics scare the hell out of me. They're the TERRORISTS!!!

quicksand said...

DEAR TIME WASTED,
THEN, JUST WHO ARE THE GOOD GUYS AND THE BAD GUYS?
OR ARE WE MERELY ONE BIG UNHAPPY FAMILY?

quicksand said...

THANKS BLIX.

I BELIEVE THAT TERRORISM IS A HORROR WHICH RUINS THE LIVES OF INNOCENTS.
WAS NELSON MANDELLA A TERRORIST?
WAS SOUTH AFRICA?


I BELIEVE SOME GOVERNMENTS DO TERRORIST ACTS. THEY HIDE BEHIND THE STERILE TECHNOLOGY OF THEIR WEAPONS AND THEIR PROCLAIMED 'INTENT'.
ONE MAN'S VICTIM IS ANOTHER'S COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

COUNT THE BODY BAGS.

Anonymous said...

Enjoyed a lot!
Discount+fioricet+online Transvestites women Small kitchen designs order tadalafil 100 viagra sale online quote