Who is a terrorist?

Collateral damage is a fairly recent invention yes, certainly in comparison to fetus . . .

The American Heritage Dictionary of the American Language, Fourth Edition wrote:

Middle English, from Latin fētus, offspring.

So as to clear up any uncertainty, that same source defines middle English as: "The English language from about 1100 to 1500."

blatham

Quote:

I'm not clear on why you hedge with a 'probably' on Ruldolph. He's blown up and killed folks like you and me walking around at a public event so as to send a political and religious message.

brandon

Quote:

Because I would have to see whether he tried hard to get only clinic workers, and no one else. That could be a factor in applying the definition. I hate what he did. It is as much murder as the abortions being performed there, and absolutely unjustifiable. I am hedging because I am trying to apply my definition fairly. As I said, Rudolph could construct an argument that the people actually performing the abortions, and the peripheral workers at the clinic were not civilians. I do not know whether this would be a correct argument or not, but it would not be an absurd argument.

An argument is absurd when, applied elsewhere, it can be seen to entail absurdities.

You have Rulolph hypothetically arguing that clinic workers (nurses, doctors, support staff) are not 'civilians'. This, of course, transforms the meaning of the word 'civilian' (someone engaged in civil life, particularly not a soldier or policeman) into an all-purpose term which might include anyone doing anything in the community which you strenuously or sincerely disapprove of.

I could, in precisely the same manner (all that is required is my strong disapproval) 'construct an argument' which defined the Pope or any representative of his church as a 'non-civilian' for their stance and activism on any number of subjects.

Or, I could make just such an 'argument' regarding weapons manufacturers, or tobacco executives (who knowingly helped cause many deaths), or really anyone at all.

Collateral damage, what a wonderful euphemism. While i do not equate the actions of the United States military with Islamic terrorism,

I'm sure you don't. Since Vietnam, no Leftist will make the mistake of villifying the US military.

I do consider the likes of the Shrub and Rummy as no better than the Islamic terrorists, and they set the United States military in motion.

I'm sure you don't, but why should we take this opinion seriously?

Presumably you can offer a more precise comparison than the ideological drivel that follows.

The principle difference which i can see between the current administration and the Muslim extremists is that the latter are motivated by religious fanaticism, whereas the former simply use religious fanaticism as a tool to attain the venal ends of their wealthy cronies.

I think I get it that you believe both Islamic Terrorists and the Bush Adminsitration are "bad," but I'm having difficulty understanding why you believe them to be morally equivalent (or equally "bad").

It is quite a statement you've made and I would expect that you might be able to expound upon it, so that we may respond with something more substantive than: "Oh yeah, well you're nuts."

I'm sure you don't. Since Vietnam, no Leftist will make the mistake of villifying the US military.

I am certainly not saying that Rudolph did anything of the kind, by the way. I am discussing what terrorist means. To me, the essence of terrorism is targetting non-combatants either directly, or being so indiscriminate that you might as well be targetting them.

But - given your last sentence - what of the US military attack on Noriega in Panama? At the time, James Baker described the attack as 'surgical'. Later we learned that there were many more innocents killed in this operation than died in the World Trade Center. The very least we can learn from this episode is that politicians and military, when they don't just simply lie to us, use euphemisms (surgical, collateral damage, remove a cancer from the world) for the obvious reasons and that we ought to be constantly skeptical.

But we also ought to be skeptical of our own thinking. As social creatures, we seem to have an innate tendency to categorize people into "us" or "them". Bad words like "terrorist" or "evil" fit that 'them' category rather more easily than they fit ourselves - for no other reason than this mental or cognitive tendency.

tico

Ya figure 'terrorist' is the correct term to describe Rudolph?

Oh, and by the way, do you think that 'terrorist' is the correct term to describe Rudolph?

And I'll repeat that earlier question to Tico...
would you define Rudolph as a terrorist?

I absolutely do not define terrorists as "the other guy." I define them as anybody who targets non-combatants as the primary, intended target.

As for the strike on Noriega, the only thing which is relevant to the characterization of an act as terrorism is (a) who the intended targets were, and (b) the degre of effort that went into minimizing civlian casualties. If an army makes an effort to attack enemy soldiers, and if, unfortunately, more civilian are killed than were expected, that does not even begin to qualify as terrorism. Now strapping a nail bomb on your waist and detonating yourself in a marketplace, or throwing and old crippled man in a wheel chair over the side of a ship because he's a Jew (Leon Klinghoffer) - that's terrorism.

As sarcasm, Tico, that's rather weak, given how most people view my conduct here.

. . . the attack on the Pentagon wouldn't be terrorism, but simply a pedestrian act of war?

Blatham: I assume your last post was directed at Brandon? If you do feel I'm not consistent, please be so kind as to point out the basis for your view, and I'll try and correct your misunderstanding.