On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:52 PM, John Sessoms <[email protected]> wrote:
> I just think it's inconsistent to call one group of people who fly planes > into buildings on purpose as a political statement terrorists and then turn > around and say another person who does the same thing is not a terrorist > just because he couldn't kill as many innocent bystanders or because he's > only doing it because he's mad at the IRS. > > If it's terrorism when a group of people murder innocent people to make a > political statement, it's terrorism when one person tries to murder innocent > people to make a political statement. > > Especially when the labeling as terrorist, or not, appears to be for the > purpose of manipulating levels of public hysteria, both then and now. The word "terrorism" is now meaningless. It is so emotionally and politically charged, and it's been used to describe so many different types of acts that we can't know what the term describes any longer. Look. A guy flew an airplane into a building. He's dead. There's a big hole in the building. What do we gain by describing it is a terrorist act? What do we gain by labeling him a terrorist? What's the use in debating this? cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
