The Definition of Terrorism
ok, Now I know we live in a time where any and all definition are relative and that one person's Matza is another one's Bread and so on, but even that has it limits. Or so I thought.
In a conversation about the Usual (Israel, Palestinians ETC.) and someone elses blog, I asked the simple question "What do you define as terrorism?" Now I know that who I was asking therefore I embraced my self for the answer, but even that wasn't good. Well to keep it simple here is the Answer I got Word for Word:
"the list I will give you below will give you an idea on what I consider as terrorism:
Killing innocent civilians is terrorism;
Stripping people from their homes and their land is terrorism;
Stigmatising someone to the point where his life becomes threatened is terrorism;
Meddling criminally in other countries internal affairs is terrorism;
Occupying other people's countries and land is terrorism;
Ethnic cleansing is terrorism;
Pushing an entire nation into despair is terrorism...
Denying a human being the elementary attributes of humanity is terrorism...
And so on..."
The only good thing about that definition is:
A. Well We are terrorists - at least the countries we live in that is, Unless some one can find a country that does not fall into one on the categories above.
B. The definition of Terrorism is actually Everything (they Think) Israel has done over the years. But Why stop there - I have a bunch of other thing Israel has done over the years" -
So keeping in this tone, since definition is now - What ever I feel like it should be - Here are some more Ideas for Terms:
Anyone who sneezes - Is a moron
Anyone who Cuts in line - is a Serial Killer,
Anyone who doesn't leave a tip - is a Rapist.
I can go on like this for a while but I will spare you all.
And of course don't forget if you dare to disagree with me - I will find some other way to define you - Evil evil person you.
In a conversation about the Usual (Israel, Palestinians ETC.) and someone elses blog, I asked the simple question "What do you define as terrorism?" Now I know that who I was asking therefore I embraced my self for the answer, but even that wasn't good. Well to keep it simple here is the Answer I got Word for Word:
"the list I will give you below will give you an idea on what I consider as terrorism:
Killing innocent civilians is terrorism;
Stripping people from their homes and their land is terrorism;
Stigmatising someone to the point where his life becomes threatened is terrorism;
Meddling criminally in other countries internal affairs is terrorism;
Occupying other people's countries and land is terrorism;
Ethnic cleansing is terrorism;
Pushing an entire nation into despair is terrorism...
Denying a human being the elementary attributes of humanity is terrorism...
And so on..."
The only good thing about that definition is:
A. Well We are terrorists - at least the countries we live in that is, Unless some one can find a country that does not fall into one on the categories above.
B. The definition of Terrorism is actually Everything (they Think) Israel has done over the years. But Why stop there - I have a bunch of other thing Israel has done over the years" -
- Flying around the world to help Innocent Victims of natural disasters - Are terrorists,
- Inventing Life Saving Medical equipment- Terrorism,
- Developing Agricultural equipment that is sold all over the world - Huge Terrorism
- Funding huge immigration operations to save people in need - obvious terrorism
So keeping in this tone, since definition is now - What ever I feel like it should be - Here are some more Ideas for Terms:
Anyone who sneezes - Is a moron
Anyone who Cuts in line - is a Serial Killer,
Anyone who doesn't leave a tip - is a Rapist.
I can go on like this for a while but I will spare you all.
And of course don't forget if you dare to disagree with me - I will find some other way to define you - Evil evil person you.
posted by Oleh Yahshan @ 4/30/2006 07:20:00 PM
Read Me By E-Mail
15 Comments:
Oleh:
The comment you're quoting from my blog is only as ridiculous as you assert when you pull it completely out of context, as you do, without even providing a link to the source text.
The comment was part of a discussion on Nation building (past and present) and how this is often a violent process. This is true for most modern Nation states, including Israel, Britain, France, Belgium, US, etc etc etc, a point eloquently made by another commenter (David) in that same discussion.
It isn't a matter of equating, say ethnic cleansing (wherever it occurs), to terrorism. It's merely a case of accepting that ethnic cleansing, just like terrorism, results in serious human suffering. In that respect they're not the same but rather different sides of the same coin.
I believe you've not really read the whole discussion but simply picked up where Sophia was drawing analogies and parallels, and you then drew the wrong conclusions.
If I pulled the latter part of your post out of context, you too would look rather a prat...
Have a nice day.
Oleh Yashan: Now you're getting the hang of it! Keep it up and you can get a job at the PA Public Relations office...they've got it down pat.
:-/
gert,
first of all don't assume things you don't know. I read the conversation and I even took the time to make a comment or two.
I am not sure how what I did was taking anthing out of context -
to Quote her again:
"The terrorrism issue: Israel is a state built on terrorrism. You just have to look at its history and how zionist militia drove Arabs from their villages and killed them."
"when I say that Israel was built on terrorrism, I mean it"
"Israel is still 'purchasing' and even grabbing land from arabs"
That was taken from parts of the conversation.
Now maybe I read it wrong or maybe my mind is going - but I read what she wrote and to quote it again:
"I will give you below will give you an idea on what I consider as terrorism"
Not an Idea of bad things, or a list of Israel's activities in my eyes in the past decade - She wrote and I will quote again - What I consider Terrorism.
Why do you insisnt on Defending her on this. She was trying to prove a point - That Israel was created on Terrorism - and to show it she gave me a list of things she defines as terrorism - namely most of the things she accuses Israel of doing.
If I misunderstood that then I guessI really must be loosing my mind.
"It's merely a case of accepting that ethnic cleansing, just like terrorism, results in serious human suffering."
If that was what she had written I would not have posted this. What She wrote (again) - "Ethnic cleansing is terrorism;"
Jameel,
do you know someone I can call there to get a job Interview?? Do you think Hamas will Give a job to An (Res.) Officer??
OY: job well done...all you've done is point out the absurdities of this crackpot's commentators who are very much like he is--as far as I can tell--and he goes off on you. You trully are a good PR man! Good thing Hamas won't be getting their hands on you any time soon, or so I hope anyways.
RegReg,
I don't know, Maybe they will offer me a good Salery - and all the Humus I can Eat :>
seriously, OY and OC, why don't you ever link to your sources?
i don't understand the point of your blog here. a country that does good things cannot possibly be a source of terrorism? obviously, i'm not saying that israel supports terrorism, but what you have to say here is in no way a valid arguement.
Menachem,
the only reason I didn't link to the source was becuase I didn't think it was relavent, and since I didn't ask the person I was quoting I didn't think it was approriate to start putting her name on my site. I have no Issue Linking to the Blog that This conversation took place, but I don't really see the point. If you want I will link you to the source.
As for your other points - well Menachem - I am sorry, but I am not going to explain every sinlge point of the post I think it make very good sense in the twisted world we live in - and if you didn't get it then you really have to lighten up a bit.
the point is, you've been accused here, and in earlier blogs, of taking things out of context. why not just link, and avoid any impression of it? it hurts your argument to not link your sources. i wouldn't want to be attacked in your blog without a link back to my original.
and as for defining terrorism, check out my blog.
ok I see you point on the source thing although I am not sure you are correct - but since I do see your point:
here is the post - the quote is from the commnets page
as for your post - I like it - I actually agree with your original definition but I will certainly post something of my own.
Oleh:
Allow me to elaborate on context and source-linking briefly.
It's always been customary since the advent of the written press to at least quote once's sources by means of a reference, so that those interested in your arguments can place them in the relevant context.
On the Internet and in the blogosphere, nothing is easier: you only need to provide a hyperlink to the source-text, assuming of course it is available as a webpage or a downloadable *.doc or *.pdf. Otherwise, a simple reference can be provided.
Look around you: 99% of bloggers take advantage of this facility because it allows them to show what they're writing about is based on something and what it's based on.
And if for some reason you don't want to provide a live hyperlink, you can simply mention the page, without actually directly linking to it.
gert,
In case you hadn't noticed, the comment above yours has the link in it.
I even wrote that I see the point that was made about context.
Menachem, first of all, I don't know what your problem has been lately. It seems that you've been going out of your way to be abrasive and rude. Second of all, not everybody wants to "out" another blogger. Some find that they would like to keep people anonymous and not name them if they don't want to. It's perfectly legitimate to quote another person and simply say that I don't want to embarrass this person or whatever, so I'm refraining from identifying them. If that person reads it, they know who they are. If they want that person to link, as gert did, then that's fine. But, if you have direct legitimate accusations then cite them. As far as I know, I do a pretty damn good job at citing sources. Please point out where, other than YOU, earlier blogs that have accused of bein taken out of context.
-OC
Thanks for the link. I wasn't actually asking for one: I was just stating that providing a link to the source text makes it easier for people to access the entire context.
Shalom.
OC, i'm not the one accusing you of taking things out of context. how could i? i usually have no idea of what the proper context is, if i don't read the original source. and there's nothing wrong with me lately. i don't understand why i'm getting attacked by everyone on your blog. i havent taken any sides in any of these fights. i'm merely pointing out pertinent facts.
Post a Comment
<< Home