August 12, 2005
-- by Dave Johnson
Yesterday, in Reassigning the Meaning of Words I wrote about Tucker Carlson prasing French terrorism that killed one person by blowing up a Greenpeace ship.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
This is an example of why I keep saying that we must have some kind of standard definition of the word "terrorist." Each political group has its own definition, and the word itself is essentially meaningless. One person's Freedom Fighter is another's "terrorist," for one thing. In the case of the Greenpeace ship, undoubtedly each considered the other a "terrorist." I hate this damned word, and using it can only lead to more disasters. It's being used mainly as a means to demonize other people, and it's being used indiscriminately.
Even in the case of 9/11, why not use the words "mass murderers?" That defines what really happened much more clearly. We'd have caught the bastards by now if we were calling them murderers instead of terrorists. The word "terrorist" is just too bland and meaningless. We all need to be using specific words to define who does what in specific events.
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)