QUESTIONS FOR THE DAY

Every time I hear the Israelis attempt to justify their latest display of lopsided savagery against the Arabs of the region, the terms terror, terrorist, and terrorism inevitably pop up. In a more clumsy fashion, Bush administration mouthpieces (including Chimpie himself, with mangled diction) use the same words to justify their imperialist policies.

This begs the questions: how do we define terror, and how do we determine who is a terrorist? What violent methods can be labeled terrorism, and what violent methods cannot? Is the very concept of terrorism merely a rhetorical vehicle for political imputation and denigration?

We will discuss this more later.

5 comments on “

  1. Cynthia says:

    These are mere words used to paint yourself as the righteous party at the expense of those you are victimizing. To gain the public’s support, if you frame the debate in a certain way, you will appear to be righteous although you’re not.The right words are an effective tool to gain control over the minds of the masses.The bottom line – a terrorist or terrorism is anything that goes against the ruling class. It’s not real, it’s a construct…

  2. Bullfrog says:

    I always consult Webster on these things, rather than endlessly pontificating about what I “think” a word means.4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.

  3. Also from Webster:Main Entry: smart-assPronunciation: -“asFunction: noun : an obnoxiously conceited and self-assertive person with pretensions to smartness or cleverness(emphasis mine)These children might have found you hilarious, bullfrog, except that the Israelis slaughtered them before they could read your clever riposte. Were they “terrorists”? Or were the Israelis “terrorists” for killing them? Perhaps you have a witticism that would offer a satisfactory answer to the families of these coffin-dwellers.

  4. Bullfrog says:

    Hey Church,I wasn’t being facetious at all, you asked to define the word and I did.What is ironic is, you didn’t criticize Cynthia for giving her “conspiracy theorist” version of the word, but I consult Webster, not wanting to be presumptuous, and get labeled a smart ass. You guys really do stick together eh?Why don’t you post some pictures of Israeli innocents maimed by the fighting?

  5. Bullfrog, this is why I don’t allow anonymous comments. I welcome people to come here and say what they want, as long as they have something to say. However, there is no guarantee that anyone won’t be called out for being a jackass. And if you get called out for being a jackass, then try to pretend like you weren’t being a jackass– well, all your words are there in black and white, and it is up to the reader decide if now you aren’t just trying to back off after being shorn.As to your characterization of Cynthia’s offering, well, let’s just say that perhaps you are out of your depth in this issue. I suggest you return to the corporate media, that ideological fantasy realm wherein the Israelis can do no wrong against the sub-human Arab menace.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s