Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Lebell · 07-19-2005, 11:14 AM

Roachboy,

Unfortunately one must agree with your assumptions at the start to agree with your conclusion, and I don't really see that you have supported your assumptions with anything substantive other than your personal opinion.

This isn't an attack on you, just my own observation on your post.

Like all words, the word "terrorist" has evolved in meaning and whether you or I like it (or not), it has a commonly accepted meaning today and that is what we must deal with.

In my mind, a reading of the History of the Jacobians and what they did during the French revolution would actually support the current common understanding of the word as first set forth by Tecoyah. Thousands of people were murdered by them for the slightest offense and most dubious reasonings during the post revolutionary years. Indeed, they seem almost Stalinistic in their purges.

I do understand your viewpoint on the current use of the word, but again I disagree with your conclusions (surprise!

) I still say that the bombings that plagued US bases and buildings and the killings of Western tourists during the 80's and 90's falls very well under the word "terrorism" even as I can understand the different motivations for the "terrorists". Some of those motivations I can somewhat sympathize with (fear of western cultural contamination, anger over Western policy in the middle east) without actually supporting the methods they use (flying planes into civilian buildings, shooting up buses, blowing up discoteques).

Note that Bush was not even in the picture during many of these episodes. So I think that the charge that Bush is somehow manipulating the word is misguided at best. Could he be making political hay from it? Almost certainly. But I don't think anyone can honestly say that Kerry or Clinton or Bush Sr. or Reagan or any other politician doesn't do the same.

No, the question becomes, is the threat still real? And perhaps that is where our opinions make our conclusions different on the relevancy of the word "terrorist". To me, recent history clearly tells me that the word is relevant. And given that it is irrefutable that those events did take place, I honestly cannot understand your conclusion that it isn't a relevant term.

07-19-2005, 11:14 AM	#12 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Roachboy, Unfortunately one must agree with your assumptions at the start to agree with your conclusion, and I don't really see that you have supported your assumptions with anything substantive other than your personal opinion. This isn't an attack on you, just my own observation on your post. Like all words, the word "terrorist" has evolved in meaning and whether you or I like it (or not), it has a commonly accepted meaning today and that is what we must deal with. In my mind, a reading of the History of the Jacobians and what they did during the French revolution would actually support the current common understanding of the word as first set forth by Tecoyah. Thousands of people were murdered by them for the slightest offense and most dubious reasonings during the post revolutionary years. Indeed, they seem almost Stalinistic in their purges. I do understand your viewpoint on the current use of the word, but again I disagree with your conclusions (surprise! ) I still say that the bombings that plagued US bases and buildings and the killings of Western tourists during the 80's and 90's falls very well under the word "terrorism" even as I can understand the different motivations for the "terrorists". Some of those motivations I can somewhat sympathize with (fear of western cultural contamination, anger over Western policy in the middle east) without actually supporting the methods they use (flying planes into civilian buildings, shooting up buses, blowing up discoteques). Note that Bush was not even in the picture during many of these episodes. So I think that the charge that Bush is somehow manipulating the word is misguided at best. Could he be making political hay from it? Almost certainly. But I don't think anyone can honestly say that Kerry or Clinton or Bush Sr. or Reagan or any other politician doesn't do the same. No, the question becomes, is the threat still real? And perhaps that is where our opinions make our conclusions different on the relevancy of the word "terrorist". To me, recent history clearly tells me that the word is relevant. And given that it is irrefutable that those events did take place, I honestly cannot understand your conclusion that it isn't a relevant term. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!