Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Oct 2001 21:53:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
671 times
|
| |
|
|
Atomic bombs on cities
Hijacked planes into towers
In my opinion both are equally terrifying.
I will stand by my analysis of the word *terror* and apply it to both acts.
We praise the pilots as patriots who flew over Japan. We denigrate the
anarchists who flew into the towers.
I would rather call the Taliban anarchists, as they seem to be against the
worlds governments and only hold their own violent faith as the law. Their
faith protects no one. Anyone could be a target for any number of reasons.
To call the Taliban a government is a very loose description. Yet they
believe in what they do. Their goal was to destabilize our way of life,
just as we fully intended to destabilize Japan. We both commited atrocious
acts of terror: America hopefully had only patriotic intentions for doing
so, while the Taliban had religious motives.
I believe that America has been in the right for atrocious act comitted.
Unfortunately we have done things of equal terror as the Taliban. So, to
call the Taliban a group of terrorists opens up debate concerning every act
of war that America has commited.
I would that we not allow any confusion. The Taliban are anarchists as they
respect no governing body of the world.
The term Terrorist simply does not hold enough weight for their actions.
That is why we can debate it so easily, yet not come to agreement on who is
more terrifying. Instead, we can search out a better word that describes
the Talibans horrendous actions, rather than attempting to twist a
well-defined word to describe them and not us.
I choose anarchists as the choice description.
Unfortunately terrorism will continue to be the choice media word as it has
more dramatic flare than the word anarchist.
On a more personnal note, seeking out the definition of a word, rather than
accepting its popular/media meaning, is a noble deed. It forces us to stop
and think more clearly, in turn, allowing us to make better decisions.
We don't have to redefine anything here.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> > the overall point here is that several people in this debate could not agree
> > with eachother's definition of terrorism. It was my intention to show that
> > there is actually one definition that does apply.
>
> The actual overall point is that one definition does not apply to both; it
> it did, there would be no debate. The only way that a single definition of
> "terrorism" can be made to apply is by reaching into the word's history,
> rather than by identifying it's currently relevent connotation.
>
> > in an earlier post a few months ago, I suggested that words do indeed tend
> > to change in meaning over time with change of usage. This is apparently
> > what is happening with the definition of terrorism... the official
> > definition no longer applies. A new definition is being formed.
>
> Exactly. And because it's a new definition, there's not much use in
> digging centuries into the past to divine its root, which isn't as relevant
> anymore.
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) The actual overall point is that one definition does not apply to both; it it did, there would be no debate. The only way that a single definition of "terrorism" can be made to apply is by reaching into the word's history, rather than by (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 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
|
|
|
|
