It's Official: Terrorism Doesn't Mean Anything Anymore

Email Print posted by Cenk 04/06/2007 08:25:16 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Today, Tony Blair called the attack that killed four British soldiers yesterday an act of terrorism. You didn't see that wrong. Yes, now attacking soldiers is also an act of terrorism. So, that's it. It's official. The word "terrorism" no longer means anything.

The whole point of labeling something a terrorist act was that it targeted civilians, and hence, was particularly heinous. Of course, this is a relatively recent definition since the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo targeted civilians, to say the least. And to say that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki also targeted civilians is a dramatic understatement.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have used the weapons we did in World War II. And I'm definitely not saying that attacking the British troops was acceptable. The loss of those four young lives is a tragedy. But if you call it terrorism to attack our troops now, there is no conceivable definition of terrorism that makes sense anymore.

Unless, of course, we just wanted to confirm what has unofficially been true for some time now. We pretty much call our enemies terrorists. And if our allies do the same exact thing we call them militants or soldiers or even freedom fighters. Does there get to be a point when the hypocrisy is a little too much to bear? And if it does, can anyone really argue we're not at that point?

The Young Turks

< Potential 1 million voters returning to the voter pool in Florida... what if they vote Democrat?? | It's about OIL, OIL, OIL. >
 Display:
It's Official: Terrorism Doesn't Mean Anything Anymore | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
How do liberals refer to terrorists? (none / 0)
“The whole point of labeling something a terrorist act was that it targeted civilians, and hence, was particularly heinous.”

Was Hezbollah’s bombing of the USMC barracks in Beirut a terrorist act?
beirut

Was the bombing of the USS Cole a terrorist act?
cole

“We pretty much call our enemies terrorists.”

It might be more accurate to label our enemies as non-uniformed saboteurs. This places them outside of protection from the Geneva Convention or the U.S. Constitution.

However, one thing is for certain. Liberals describe any group who declares war on America as “heroes”. In every case, liberals side with the enemy over their own country. This is exactly what happened during Vietnam, and you guys are using the same playbook forty years later.

by KenTX on 04/07/2007 02:09:43 AM EST

The Acrosization of Ken (none / 0)

Liberals describe any group who declares war on America as “heroes”.

I'll see your dickweedery and raise you a zinger.  With your marked  inability to correctly use the word "terrorists," it should be no surprise that you and Acroso are so crap at correctly using the word "liberals." 

by OneHitKill on 04/07/2007 04:50:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
terminology (none / 0)
"With your marked  inability to correctly use the word "terrorists,"

I typically avoid using the word "terrorists", because it opens me up to criticism from people like you. I prefer the terms "Islamic Jihadists" and "non-uniformed saboteurs". You've seen plenty of examples of this useage.

When Commanche warriors attacked Texas farmers by the light of a full moon, and inflicted unspeakable horrors and depredations, should they have been referred to as "enemy combatants"?

Likewise, when al Qaeda operatives decapitate humanitaria n aid workers, should they be called "freedom fighters"? 

by KenTX on 04/07/2007 08:10:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
They were "Texas moon slasher bogies" (none / 0)

When Commanche warriors attacked Texas farmers by the light of a full moon, and inflicted unspeakable horrors and depredations, should they have been referred to as "enemy combatants"?

Why not just call them "Commanche warriors?"  You just called them that yourself, after all.  "Commanche warriors" has a concrete meaning attached to it.  So does "al Qaeda operatives."  The fluffy, non-committal weasel word "terrorist," on the other hand, is for poets and comic book writers and authors of jingo-fiction.  Keep it off my front page.

"Freedom fighters?"  That's a stupid term, as well.  Always has been. 

by OneHitKill on 04/07/2007 01:01:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're the linguist, not me. (none / 0)
So I defer to your superior knowledge on the subject.

"The fluffy, non-committal weasel word "terrorist," on the other hand, is for poets and comic book writers and authors of jingo-fiction."

How will history label Timothy McVeigh?

(A) domestic terrorist

(B) patriot

(C) bomber

(D) radical activist

(E) mass murderer

(F) disgruntled government employee

(G) rampage killer

It depends on who is writing the history, and what point of view they are promoting.

If a terrorist is one who commits acts of terror, and a murderer is one who commits acts of murder, and a bomber is one who commits acts of bombing, then which is the correct label?

by KenTX on 04/08/2007 05:18:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Fluggler (N.) One who fluggles (none / 0)

"If a terrorist is one who commits acts of terror, and a murderer is one who commits acts of murder, and a bomber is one who commits acts of bombing, then which is the correct label?"

You don't define a word using another form of the same word.  That means you can't use the word "terror" in your definition of "terrorist," because it begs the question, what is "terror?"  No one will argue with your definitions of "bomber," "murderer" or "killer"...but those words are a hundred times more clear-cut in their meaning than "terrorist" will ever be. 

If terrorism fails to incite feelings of terror, does it cease to be terrorism?  If it makes somebody laugh somewhere in the world, does that make it comedy?  Journalism could stand to eliminate such linguistic relativisms from its vocabulary entirely.  Your Tim McVeigh analogy is designed to invoke an emotional response, but to take your bait:  No, Tim McVeigh shouldn't be called a terrorist, either.  He committed murder, so he WAS a murderer.  He used bombs, so he WAS a bomber.  Call him those things if you want.

by OneHitKill on 04/08/2007 09:04:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Calling all KenTx's (none / 0)

KenTX, have you abandoned this debate?  Look what people are saying about you!

BytchBang:  "He always runs away from the issue.  Fucking Texoid." 

LeftIsRight:  "Delusional nutjob troll!"

Acroso:  "Why is he siding with the terrorists?"

ChuzLife:  "I love you, BytchBang." 

by OneHitKill on 04/21/2007 11:39:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
know when to fold 'em (none / 0)
"KenTX, have you abandoned this debate?"

I must admit that I've surrendered the field to your superior position.

This is a debate over semantics, and while I'm certainly not "anti-semantic", at the core I remain a lowly engineer. My strengths are skills related to mathematics and science and logic, but my obvious weakness is literacy. In fact, I consider myself virtually illiterate. My writing style probably hurts your eyes.

Whenever I debate science issues with an environmentalist, the contest feels as effortless as wrestling with a three year old child. There is no challenge.

On the other hand, I know enough not to argue linguistics with an expert linguist, or attempt teaching pussy eating to an expert cunnilinguist.

by KenTX on 04/22/2007 02:23:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No one's as anti-semantic as Mel Gibson (none / 0)

It is a semantic debate, but I don't like how the word "semantics" gets brushed off so often.  I've seen participants in televised discussion get angry and accuse their opponent of starting a "semantic debate," as if it's a bad thing.

I know you didn't get angry and accuse me of starting a semantic debate in order to sidestep the issue, but the role of language deserves more respect from all participants.  This is something about which I feel very strongly.  Word choice can and does, over time, cause people to hold one opinion rather than another, and should be regarded in league with standards of fact-checking and responsible journalism.  Slippery semantics are the keystone of propaganda, no matter which side you're on.

by OneHitKill on 04/22/2007 05:02:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Word Police (none / 0)
I think we are looking for a word to describe people who are willing to blow themselves up and kill innocent children in an effort to intimidate and strike terror in the hearts of people who have a different religion. The word "terrorist" seems to fit nicely, and has been employed for decades.

Only recently has the word "terrorist" become politicized, with liberals trying to make the case that it shouldn't be used. In fact, the same liberals are trying to make the same case that the word "liberal" shouldn't be used either. They are trying to make the case that the phrase "Democrat Party" should never be uttered.

by KenTX on 04/22/2007 12:37:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Vice, meet Versa (none / 0)

Don't mess around with the word police.  They'll fuck you up with relative pronouns.

The politicization of "terrorist" started before anyone said we should stop using it.  Rather, the word should be abandoned BECAUSE it has become politicized (by -- Guess who?  Here's a hint: not liberals).  Abandonment is the only remedy for abused words that have shed their meaning.  I worry about people like Acroso, whose understanding of words like "terrorist" and "liberal" has been undermined by misuse.  For their sake, republican leaders will someday, hopefully, reach the consensus that it's NOT in their best interest to keep their constituents dumb as boards.

by OneHitKill on 04/23/2007 03:20:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It's Official: Terrorism Doesn't Mean Anything Anymore | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: