9-11 has us all thinking about terrorism. It's like a new "Remeberance Day". We all turn our thoughts to New York City, think of where we were on that day, then we usually think about this "terrorism" thing on the whole. There's an assortment of news specials as media companies compete for your attention.
What do the terrorists do when they see western coverage of "terrorism"? I believe they think to themselves "Mission Accomplished". This is not to say that we've capitulated, rather its a question of have we inadvertently given them a source of pride?
Meriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law has a good definition of terrorism: violent and intimidating gang activity. So there's two key parts there. "Violent", which is a given, terrorist acts involve bombing, shooting, beheading, which you can safely assert to being violent. "Intimidating", this is the part that I think gives unintended comfort to the bad guys.
So, when we throw the word "terrorism" around there, our antagonists must really be thinking, "look at us, we're intimidating them, we're casting a cloud of fear over the infidels, they feel terrorized. Mission Accomplished! Who do we bomb next? Let's keep this going".
So, my cure for terrorism is this: stop calling it terrorism. Find a different word, something that's synonymous with what they are: cowards who stick and run, will not fight you face-to-face. At their core, they are weak and without honour. Can't we exploit this by giving these acts a different term?
Any ideas?
5 comments:
Your article defines terrorism as altogether 'bad'. Aren't there any good terrorists out there? One man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.
Call a terrorist by what they do, even if you wet your pants when you hear that word. Because that's what they are, plain and simple. Whether they are our terrorists or their terrorists.
You could say that the US has some terroristic attributes, but I believe that they genuinely try to stick to killing the military aggressors. "terrorists" don't give a rip who they kill.
I think the US are still the good guys, despite what the Dixie Chicks say.
The most irksome thing about the 9/11 terrorists and the run-of-the mill Iraqi insurgent that feature on the evening news is their eagerness to give up their own lives to get on with screwing virgins in heaven. Plain old warfare is bad enough, but fighting a “Freedom Fighter” that does not value his own life on earth nor the lives of non-combative civilians, is difficult.
I blame religion—ALL religion. Not having the answers and being comfortable with the questions is something to aspire to. Those claiming to have the answers are full of 100% pure unadulterated bullcrap—usually thought of as harmless, but history proves otherwise. Bad ideas are for sale every day, and by the looks of things, business is booming.
Yeah. That Dalai Lama is a sham, you can tell he wants to blow himself up and kill others. And take a look at that Billy Graham, I'll bet he's packing heat under that suit jacket.
Not to mention Sister Theresa, what a scam artist she was. Sure had me fooled.
Consider the ramifications if they are all right. It is impossible. Mother Theresa may have been a good person, but she does not subscibe to Billy Graham's or the Dalai Lama's teachings, other than where they conveniently fit her own beliefs. And what about Mohammad?
IMHO, religion is a tool to subvert women, terrorize homosexuals and control populations and has been given more than a millenia to prove itself, but in the end, that which promotes the moral and good so often proves to be the opposite in practice.
I do not wish to recruit people or change their beliefs, in fact, quite the opposite. I'm just saying: "Imagine there's no heaven..."
Post a Comment