Quote:
|
I contend that terrorism is particularly bad, but is not engaged in by Israel. You contend that terrorism has multiple definitions, and is engaged in by Israel.
|
Yet another Oh dear I'm afraid. In fact, three Oh dears.
1. We can all 'contend that terrorism is particularly bad' but such a contention isn't going to do anyone much good. What's 'particularly'? What's 'bad'? These words are simply more movable counters.
2. I did not contend that terrorism has 'multiple definitions'. Most of the dictionary definitions I presented are in broad agreement. My point was that almost none of them met your 'particularly' precise definition.
3. Re. terrorism being 'engaged in by Israel'. What I said was: 'Like it or not, many of the main definitions could apply to Israeli government 'terrorism' with no stretch of the imagination.' Note that I put terrorism in scare-quotes. My point here isn't that Israel is a 'terrorist state', but that the word itself isn't nearly as useful (for the purposes of this discussion anyway) as so many seem to think.
C'mon, let's be honest here. The word 'terrorism' is
emotive, much like the word 'evil'. You can call Hezbollah evil if you wish, but it doesn't help elucidate anything. We seem to be constantly wrangling with the connundrum of which side is the REAL baddie, which is neither here nor there. Words like terrorism are unfurled like flags, staking claims, marking territories. I just think we should get beyond all that. But perhaps there
is no beyond, just a riot of split ends.