Subject:
|
Re: A question of remembrance...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 May 2001 20:10:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
867 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Fine, fine. But you asked me for my definition, then gave examples of people
> that you assert fit my definitions. Most of those people don't "fit" my
> internal notion (which, as always, with any internal notion of any other
> person, can never be completely and precisely expressed by words). So..
> either the definition wasn't crisp enough and needs fixing or my internal
> notion is wrong, or these people did things I was unaware of.
Your internal notion is your paradigm of world issues, including what you
consider to be a terrorist. You have formed this paradigm through whatever
media you've accepted as "the truth"...whether it is ABC, CNN, or
newspapers, magazines or whatever (or whomever). So, rather than say your
internal notion is wrong, I would say that the media that helped you build
your paradigm is wrong (morally and factually) because it is pro-Zionist.
That's why I entreat a paradigm shift so you don't unwittingly take the side
of the oppressor (the bully).
> Hence, I asked, why did you think these people fit, and what is YOUR
> definition. Not hollywoods, but your personal definition. Put another way,
> do you really think those presidents are terrorists by your own definition
> or just that my definition is wrong, or something else?
By the exact wording in your definition, there's no question that all those
Presidents were guilty of "terrorism". They all took actions that led to the
death of bystanders, either accidently or deliberately. So, hopefully I made
a point about how biased the term "terrorist" is. "Terrorist" and "soldier"
are similar like "tool" and "weapon". A "pencil" is a tool for writing but
when plunged into someone, it becomes a weapon. Either way, it is still a
"pencil".
> > Try to think back to when you were a kid and had to deal with a bully... >That's closer to my definition of terrorism.
>
> The bully is a terrorist? Not sure this helps, but try some other analogies.
Yes, the bully is the "terrorist" because they initiate conflict and operate
via coersion rather than cooperation.
Example: you're just minding your own business and a bully (the terrorist,
the soldier) comes along, takes your lunch money and starts kicking your
butt. You choose to fight back and people call you the bully (terrorist,
etc). Is that right?
I'll give you a current example: Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children
have died as a direct result of the U.N. sanctions America and UK uphold.
Are they not bystanders? We easily dismiss the blame to Saddam's government.
If the Iraqis decide to blow up some Americans, would those American's also
be bystanders? Couldn't the Iraqis similarly dismiss the blame to the
American government? Who is the terrorist?
> We can get in a factoid war if you like, I can dig up factoids on just about
> anything if I want. Not sure what it will accomplish.
Interesting that you chose the word "war". I'm merely trying to show you the
truth, not the filtered garbage you chose to stand by. Dig away! Believe me,
you wouldn't have a moral leg to stand on if you wanted to justify the
Israeli occupation. I'm trying to help you not look foolish or unfair.
Better to be informed than remain ignorant. It's your tax money, my friend.
> > Read this:
> > http://www.jewsnotzionists.org
>
> Saw the cite the first time, thanks. Might read it if I have time, might not.
Do read it, it's the testimony of well respected Rabbis on the topic of Zionism.
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org
> 1 - Read a fun SF book, _Jumper_ which made a tangential point. While many
> in the US regard the truck bomb sent into the Marine compound in Lebanon in
> the early 80s, for example, as a terrorist attack, to most disinterested
> observers, it is not. Self sacrificial, yes, but the bomb was directed
> against a military target.
Yes, and what was the context? Occupation.
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes: <snip> I appreciate your concern for my morals and my tax dollars. However... I want to stay narrow and not specific to this issue. What is a terrorist? Divorce it from the context. I gave a (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) Sorry, that just means this: What if, in the definition wording, we changed "as a way" to "as a primary way"... the shorthand comes in because c/xx/yy/ is an editor command in several old skool line editors to effect a change of xx to yy. When (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
197 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
