S. Alexander Jacobson
Wed, 9 Jan 2002 18:04:15 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
I think I missed the transition to terrorism but,
in any case, the difference between violence and
terrorism, is, well, the use of terror.
Terrorists terrorize civilians in order to get
them to change their government's policy.
Terrorism is not a viable strategy against a
dictatorship. Terrorism involves violence
or threats of violence against innocent civilians
and is evil.
In contrast violence against an oppressor/attacker
may be ok, because it falls into the category of
Regarding cowardice, why is it important to you to
correct the usage in their case. Obviously
cowardice is a non-provable condition. Bush's
usage is purely spin to support the campaign
against them. The reason why people got upset at
Bill Maher is that either he did not understand
that or he was against the campaign against
the 9/11 terrorists. After all, if it was only a
matter of semantic correctness, there are many
things to talk about that are less helpful to OBL.
S. Alexander Jacobson i2x Media
1-212-787-1914 voice 1-603-288-1280 fax
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Jeff Bone wrote:
> John Evdemon wrote:
> > Committing
> > violence against innocent people in the name of Islam is an
> > act of cowardice and terrorism. No "cause" justifies this
> > type of action.
> And what about similar incidents committed by proto-Americans against
> the British in the US war for independence? (Or any number of other
> historical analogies. Granted, they are imperfect; 9-11 set a new,
> abominable standard for violence of this kind.) I'm sorry, but while
> yes, I believe the actions of the jihadists are despicable, I also think
> it's not as black and white as all that. One man's terrorist is
> another's revolutionary hero. The only difference is historical in
> nature, and the victor gets to write history. (Conclusion: it's
> important to be the victor for many reasons. :-)
> Furthermore, just exactly how is this "cowardice?" I'm with Bill Maher
> on this one. The folks involved in 9-11 may be any number of things,
> but one thing they aren't is cowards. This is rhetorical claptrap and
> demagoguery propagated by a man --- our erstwhile president, *cough* ---
> who apparently doesn't *actually* know the meaning of *any* English
> > Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Christians are
> > terrorists.
> Are all revolutionaries terrorists? How about the violent ones? Is
> violence designed to undermine a system that you or others feel is
> oppressive ever warranted? If that's the only way to overcome the
> oppression, is it warranted? Under what conditions might it be
> warranted? What exactly do you mean by terrorist, anyway?