Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Powerclown,
From your requirements, it really looks as if you're just trying to paint people into a corner where they have to type the word "terrorist". It is hard to see that you posted this with any other possible outcome in mind.
If this is in fact what you were intending, I'm curious as to what you thought it would accomplish - just getting people to admit that the word terrorist can be used appropriately? I'm not sure this will acomplish much. The word terrorist is a category or type of person, as coin is a type of object. A terrorist could be trying to accomplish all sorts of objectives (which have varying degrees of legitimacy), and that is the point that people who reject that label have been trying to make. Frankly, the word only conveys a couple of things - first, that the individual or group in question is separate from whoever the name-caller is (as I've never seen anyone label themself as a terrorist), and that in most cases the people in question do not act on the behalf of a recognized government. Even the second part is coming into question with the current focus on "terrorist regimes" - which is a bit of an oxymoron. I see it as an attempt to paint nations who don't do what we like with the bad associations that come with the word "terrorist".
So, Powerclown, I'd like to ask you if your point was to make people use the word terrorist as a descriptor. If so, what does this accomplish? If not, what exactly were you getting at, because I think most of us missed the point.
|
To your first point: I don't think I am painting anyone into a corner. The events are real events that actually took place. I understand that some people don't see these folks as terrorists...fine, so if they are not terrorists what are they? (I see that some have called them bombers, sociopaths, violent, so far...)
Your coin analogy is interesting...which brings up a question: if people truly believe that these folks have legitimate interests, why all the fuss over what they're called? Go ahead and call them heroes if thats what you think they are.
I'm not so sure it's a bad thing to separate oneself from folk motivated to commit violence and single them out as the "other", because then doesn't morality become moot, concepts of right and wrong vanish? I think some people worry that, taken to the extreme, the singling out of certain people automatically leads to Bad Things. I don't think it necessarily so. I see this as an issue that needs to be considered not only by those who would judge these events, but by the perpetrators as well as their communities.
Last point: I find it curious that you think, in your final paragraph, the events I mentioned necessitate one to choose the term "terrorist" by default. Of course, I'm not making people say anything. I'd like people to think of this as a cultural inkblot experiment. I made it clear in my opening thread that one is free to label these men whatever they want to, and I expected answers other than 'terrorist'. So I'm not sure why you would say I am forcing people to use the word if they truly don't believe it fits the situation.