Doggedly searching for the crux of the biscuit.
"When I use a word, it means exactly what I say it means. Nothing more, nothing less." - Humpty Dumpty, Alice through the Looking Glass
From David Neiwert at Orcinus:
It's starting to become clear that, to the Bush administration -- and their corporate and media cohorts -- the definition of a "terrorist" is "someone we don't like." All in the past week, we were treated to the following spectacles:
-- An administration official -- the education secretary, no less -- declaring the National Education Association a "terrorist organization."
-- The chairman of American International Group referred to lawyers who are opposed to Republican plans for tort reform as "bar terrorists."
-- CNN's Judy Woodruff, in an interview with Jean-Bertrand Aristide, chiding the Haitian leader that the armed thugs rampaging through the island nation were not "terrorists" but rather "political opponents."
But in the meantime, a mail bomber in Arizona can set off an explosion in a government office -- one aimed at promoting racial diversity -- and hardly anyone hears a peep about it. Certainly, no one has begun referring to the attack as terrorism, even though that is quite clearly what it is.
Read the rest, then take a gander at Sy Hersh's (also a terrorist, as you may recall) latest article in the New Yorker about the terrifying sham situation regarding Pakistan's nuclear proliferation and the Bush administration's "no big deal" reaction. Bush will indeed fool many people into voting for him because of his dimwitted WarOnTerror™ (brought to to you by the same creative geniuses behind the WarOnDrugs™ and other fine, family-oriented, screen-tested wars), but from any fair reading of the facts, he has done just about the very worst job of combatting terrorism ever. Except for, of course, Ronald "freedom fighter" Reagan, who never met a right-wing terrorist he didn't like (Jonas Savimbi, anybody? Roberto D'Aubuisson? Oh, I know - how about Osama bin Laden?) .
If you're going to practice double standards, you will be paid with double standards. Don't use it. Don't condone Israeli terror, Pakistani terror, Nicaraguan terror, El Salvadoran terror, on the one hand, and then complain about Afghan terror or Palestinian terror. It doesn't work.
No, it certainly doesn't.
TrackBackHere's the one question I've not seen anyone tackle this whole time. Note that by saying this I am /not/ suggesting that I think the places mentioned above are engaged in anything like a noble cause. I am not that moronic, or so I hope.
That said, where's the line between freedom fighters and terrorists? Is it all just a matter of perspective? Are there higher ideals that justify violence? Or is all violence countermanded by those same higher ideals? For instance, were the founding fathers terrorists? From one perspective, undoubtedly - but from where I'm sitting, I'm mighty glad they were, if so. That's the big thought I keep having: we were founded by acts which some surely branded terror (or would have, given today's contexts).
I, personally, am of an almost entirely pacifistic philosophy. If someone jumps me in an alley I will absolutely do my best to defend myself (which wouldn't be very good, but hey), but I don't advocate doing the jumping. So, I've got very little sympathy for anyone who claims that blowing up people and things is the only way to achieve their aims. I've gotten a rather lot out of life without blowing anything up, so I just can't get into that mindset. But still that question nags at the back of my mind: when is it terror and when is it a nobler revolution?
Note that I'm burying this comment in an older post because a part of me fears asking that question aloud these days. I'm such a wuss.
Posted by: Michael at March 3, 2004 09:06 PMHistorically, you are a revolutionary/freedom fighter when you win and a terrorist when you do not. As for the deeper semantic question you raise, I don't have an easy formula for that, so it pretty much comes down to the same one I mentioned in the previous sentence.
Posted by: apostropher at March 8, 2004 05:02 PM