Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Regarding the subject matter, someone here had a phrase that resonated with me: Calling a terrorist a terrorist doesn't mean you have to agree on how to deal with the problem but it is the first step in figuring out what the problem is.
|
I don't agree at all (as I suppose is no surprise by now). The word "terrorist" has lost all meaning. Its only use is as a right-wing prop to bolster assaults against human rights and political freedoms.
Calling things what they really are CAN be the first step in figuring out what a problem is and what to do about it, but in THIS case, the word "terrorist" only serves to further obfuscate the situation, and to distance America and her allies from any responsibility in the world climate that produces terrorists.
That's what the word "terrorist" has devolved into--somebody with some sort of inborn pathological anti-American desire to hurt people. That's what we're being told. What we're not being reminded of is all the American training that Osama Bin Laden received when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, how much support and partnership Saddam Hussein received before the Iranian revolution. No, those are The Bad Guys in our little black and white cowboy movie version of international affairs. And as far as conventional wisdom goes, they were born bad guys.
I say it again: in life (and CERTAINLY in politics) there IS no black and white. EVERYTHING is grey.
I'd be REALLY interested in a discussion about why so-called terrorists do what they do. What Osama Bin Laden's reasons are for his actions (and it's NOT "because he hates freedom").